Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Stewart <vericgar@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] apache and ~arch
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:24:00
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] apache and ~arch by Grant Goodyear
1 Grant Goodyear wrote:
2 > The serious breakage for people occurred because the apache devs
3 > released into ~arch the new apache ebuild before a number of rather
4 > important apache-module ebuilds had been rewritten to use the new
5 > apache config. Now, I think we've all done things like that (forgotten
6 > a dependency, or something that uses the current package as a
7 > dependency, or missed an obscure USE flag) by accident, and that's why
8 > we have an ~arch tree. The ~arch tree, at least in my understanding,
9 > is for testing ebuilds, and it's not surprising that sometimes the
10 > e-build has an error in it. However, I don't believe that ~arch should
11 > be used for ebuilds that one _knows_ have broken functionality. For
12 > such cases we have package.mask.
14 In defense of the Apache team, and myself as I am leading the unmasking
15 of Apache and it's modules....
17 I believe the specific situation you are referring to is mod_php. We did
18 patch it and have it hard masked, and wanted the php herd's stamp of
19 approval before we unmasked it. All of us that are working on this are
20 rather new developers (I myself have only been a dev since December),
21 and didn't want to break someone else's package, especially one as
22 complex as PHP. So we left it hard-masked while unmasking ours, and
23 referenced users to the already open bug about mod_php and also pointed
24 users at the hard-masked revision of mod_php that worked for us. I agree
25 it could have been handled better, but what we did seemed like enough at
26 the time. The packages are in ~arch, and we never intended them to go to
27 stable without all other expected packages there as well.
29 Some have suggested that we move backwards into hard-mask. I disagree
30 with this. When we moved from hard-mask to ~arch, we did so to get a
31 wider testing audience. We have run into a few glitches here and there,
32 but that is the point of ~arch, to work all the glitches out before
33 moving to stable. The major breakage that most users came across was the
34 unexpected non-working of mod_php. And now mod_php revision that works
35 with the new apache revision is no longer in hard-mask. Moving back to
36 hard-mask at this point in time would only cause more headaches then
37 pushing forward to get everything working together. Arguments for either
38 side are welcome however.
41 --
42 Michael Stewart vericgar@g.o
43 Gentoo Developer
45 GnuPG Key ID 0x08614788 available on
46 --


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] apache and ~arch Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o>