| 1 |
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "broken" in the first paragraph nor |
| 4 |
> > how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if |
| 5 |
> > a repoman check will hasten package porting while smoothing the users' |
| 6 |
> > ride, I'm personally all for it. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> By "broken" I mean unported. In other words, directly depending on |
| 9 |
> either virtual/x11 or x11-base/xorg-x11. The check will help discover |
| 10 |
> unmaintained packages by not allowing people to do flyby fixes without |
| 11 |
> also fixing this. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> What can I do to speed up the process of getting this into a 2.1 |
| 14 |
> release? Keep in mind my python is beyond bad. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Perhaps not so easy. What specific states need to be checked for to regard a |
| 17 |
package as broken? Depending on "x11-base/xorg-x11" is one. Depending on |
| 18 |
"virtual/x11" seems to be valid looking at the porting guide though. Would |
| 19 |
considering a package broken if it contains "virtual/x11" where the token |
| 20 |
immediately preceding the surrounding brackets is not "||" be correct? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
DEPEND="x11-base/xorg-x11" # wrong |
| 23 |
DEPEND="virtual/x11" # wrong |
| 24 |
DEPEND="|| ( x11? ( virtual/x11 ) )" # wrong |
| 25 |
DEPEND="|| ( misc/atoms virtual/x11 )" # right |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
There's a small possibility that broken packages will be missed by this, but |
| 28 |
is there any chance that valid packages will be incorrectly flagged? If this |
| 29 |
gets a go-ahead, it'll be easy enough to get in for the next release (which |
| 30 |
is likely this coming Saturday). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives