| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:48 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> changes to all the ebuilds, since we've generally just been putting them |
| 5 |
>>> in the latest ~arch and newer (p.mask). This should mostly be a copy and |
| 6 |
>> We have? No wonder it's been taking me so fscking long to get all of |
| 7 |
>> the games stuff done. I've been doing it for every version of all |
| 8 |
>> offending packages, not just the ones in ~arch, since we can't be sure |
| 9 |
>> if a user is using a mixed stable/testing system or not. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Sorry about the confusion there =( |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> People using mixed stable/testing can deal with the consequences (i.e., |
| 14 |
> also ~arch broken packages) until the proper app maintainer gets around |
| 15 |
> to fixing all the deps. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Ah, forgot to mention this. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That is the process the task force is using to port packages. The |
| 20 |
package maintainers may want to work differently by fixing all the |
| 21 |
ebuilds for a given package, because repoman will soon refuse to let you |
| 22 |
commit anything unless they're all ported. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The task force is doing enough to get the tree working for ~arch users |
| 25 |
and to set an example that package maintainers can port over to the rest |
| 26 |
of their ebuilds. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
As you're really more of a package maintainer for the games you're |
| 29 |
porting, you will probably want to stick with the way you're doing things. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Donnie |
Archives