Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.de>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: zlib breakage
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:45:21
Message-Id: j5ju7q$ei4$
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] zlib breakage by Mike Frysinger
On 09/24/2011 08:24 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2011 17:44:50 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> I believe something needs to be done with the zlib- and -r2 >> packages currently in the tree. The maintainer of zlib pushed those >> revisions with a patch that alters macro identifiers, making Gentoo's >> zlib incompatible with upstream. > > the defines in question are internal to zlib. packages relying on them are > broken, plain and simple.
Then fix *them*, not zlib.
>> As a result, a lot of packages stopped building. > > the *only* code that broke was code that was copied out of the zlib tree and > directly imported into other projects -- minizip. because the code was > designed to be compiled& linked as part of the zlib project, it uses internal > zlib defines. projects copying the code into their own tree and not cleaning > things up made a mistake. > > for many, this is a direct violation of Gentoo policy and they should be fixed > to use the minizip code that zlib exports. for the rest that modify the code > heavily, they should stop using the internal defines since their own code base > doesn't support pre-ansi C compilers.
Then why did you "fix" zlib instead of those bad packages?
>> Bug reports for broken packages come in and then are being >> modified to fit Gentoo's zlib. > > and those fixes can be sent to the respective upstreams
See above.
>> Breaking compatibility with upstream zlib also means that non-portage >> software, the ones I install with "./configure --prefix=$HOME/usr&& >> make install", also won't build. > > send the fix to the upstream maintainer
Maybe 5% of users know how to code. The rest doesn't.
>> It's a mess right now and it just doesn't look right. The bug that >> deals with it was locked from public view: > > because you keep presenting the same flawed ideas and ignore the responses. > in fact, all of the answers i posted above i already posted to the bug.
You ignore the suggestions, which is the reason the same arguments pop up over and over again. The core issue is that ~arch is turning into a testing ground for upstreams rather than for Gentoo packaging. It's not nice to keep something in portage unmasked that is *known* to break packages, and *especially* if it's a beta release of an important base library (which zlib certainly is). But you ignore that repeatedly. And this makes it very frustrating to communicate. ~arch is not for cleaning up upstream crap. ~arch is for testing packages that will later be marked stable.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: zlib breakage Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>