Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Joshua Jackson <tsunam@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:46:12
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X by Donnie Berkholz
2 Hash: SHA1
4 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
5 > Joshua Jackson wrote:
6 >> I will have to agree that this change has made it a pain to mark
7 >> anything
8 >> stable. I had 4 out of the 6 I did today bail out because of this.
9 >> I took the
10 >> simple easy fix and removed the check to stabalize the packages I
11 >> needed to. I
12 >> know we have people who want modular X yesterday, but causing
13 >> trouble for dev's
14 >> going about business that doesn't involve the modular problems
15 >> directly is only
16 >> going to cause resentment and frustration to all the teams involved.
17 >
18 > Why is the simple fix not copying over the already fixed
19 > dependencies in the latest ebuild? It's not as if that's a lot of
20 > work. That's the intent of this failure -- to avoid flyby commits by
21 > people when they could just fix the deps (which are already
22 > available in ~arch) while they're there.
23 >
24 > Thanks,
25 > Donnie
26 In the oldest version of the package (as all these were), I don't see
27 much point in the change. They will be removed within a fairly short
28 amount of time. Secondary, you are suggesting that any dev who comes
29 across a modular x problem to fix it..even if this is a direct
30 violation of the guidelines set forth in the documentation? I'm
31 curious as to why you want potentially 200+ dev's to violate it, to
32 push modular so quickly?
34 Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
36 iD8DBQFD3wfrSENan+PfizARApkUAJ4/Rfr/iMwZMD1lCkhwBnGH+BhUVwCdHqsD
37 Rc97k6+FBAKp59MAa2t16Ig=
38 =P92T
39 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
41 --
42 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o>