| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:43, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/24/2011 08:24 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
>> the defines in question are internal to zlib. packages relying on them |
| 4 |
>> are broken, plain and simple. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Then fix *them*, not zlib. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
they are being fixed already |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Then why did you "fix" zlib instead of those bad packages? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
i have no idea what you're talking about. they're both getting fixed. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
>>> Breaking compatibility with upstream zlib also means that non-portage |
| 15 |
>>> software, the ones I install with "./configure --prefix=$HOME/usr&& |
| 16 |
>>> make install", also won't build. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> send the fix to the upstream maintainer |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Maybe 5% of users know how to code. The rest doesn't. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
then file a bug report. it isn't rocket science. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
>>> It's a mess right now and it just doesn't look right. The bug that |
| 25 |
>>> deals with it was locked from public view: |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> because you keep presenting the same flawed ideas and ignore the |
| 28 |
>> responses. |
| 29 |
>> in fact, all of the answers i posted above i already posted to the bug. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> You ignore the suggestions, which is the reason the same arguments pop up |
| 32 |
> over and over again. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
i read your position, evaluated it, and found it to be inferior. you |
| 35 |
cannot accept that, thus you continue to waste time. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> The core issue is that ~arch is turning into a testing |
| 38 |
> ground for upstreams rather than for Gentoo packaging. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
if you want to restart the long thread about what ~arch is actually |
| 41 |
for, then go for it. it has come up from time to time and developers |
| 42 |
are generally fine with the current model. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> keep something in portage unmasked that is *known* to break packages |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
~arch is known to have bugs. if you don't want bugs, don't use ~arch. |
| 47 |
we do not operate on a "if you broke anything at all, it must get |
| 48 |
reverted" development style. you simply need to accept the reality. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
further, in order to get p.masked, it has to be a fairly wide |
| 51 |
breakage. in this case, we've got a whopping ~15 bugs. half of which |
| 52 |
are already fixed. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> *especially* if it's a beta release of an important base library (which zlib |
| 55 |
> 1.2.5.1 certainly is). |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
there hasn't been a single bug filed about 1.2.5 vs 1.2.5.1. stop |
| 58 |
making up issues that don't exist. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
> But you ignore that repeatedly. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
back up your position with actual data and perhaps someone will listen. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
until you have something new to say, there isn't anything left for me to cover. |
| 65 |
-mike |
Archives