1 |
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 18:18:43 +0000 |
2 |
bugzilla-daemon@g.o wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. Also, do not reply via email to the person |
5 |
> whose email is mentioned below. To comment on this bug, please visit: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=488318 |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Tom Wijsman (TomWij) <tomwij@g.o> changed: |
10 |
> |
11 |
> What |Removed |Added |
12 |
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
13 |
> Summary|media-video/mpv broken |
14 |
> |media-video/mpv[luajit] - |dependency on |Keyword |
15 |
> request on alpha, |dev-lang/luajit:2 |arm, ppc, ppc64, sparc |
16 |
> |
17 |
> --- Comment #10 from Tom Wijsman (TomWij) <tomwij@g.o> --- |
18 |
> (In reply to Jeroen Roovers from comment #5) |
19 |
> > No, you broke it for HPPA users and for devs working on mpv. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Yes, HPPA only because of the comment in package.use.mask; no |
22 |
> problems for devs. |
23 |
|
24 |
"Breaking the tree" in this case quite literally means "using repoman |
25 |
commit --force" because repoman would not otherwise let you do that[a]. |
26 |
As I explained to you in comment #5[b] you should have simply dropped |
27 |
the keywords instead of messing with the profiles and you should have |
28 |
notified the affected arch teams (all of them): |
29 |
|
30 |
> > Sometimes you may need to remove a keyword because of new unresolved |
31 |
> > dependencies. If you do this, you *must* file a bug notifying the |
32 |
> > relevant arch teams."[1] |
33 |
> |
34 |
> For all arches Nikoli planned to do this (#gentoo-desktop; to avoid |
35 |
> filing duplicate, I didn't); he delayed this, but this should not |
36 |
> form a problem since the temporary masks are in place. It does on |
37 |
> HPPA, as I am not permitted to remove the keyword on the USE flag. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> > *After* you broke the tree. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> The comment literally says to file a bug instead of touching it; so, |
42 |
> yes, as a result of what I am requested to do by that comment the |
43 |
> tree breaks for HPPA. |
44 |
|
45 |
You didn't file a bug report and you committed a broken ebuild. |
46 |
|
47 |
> That's what the file is designed to solve; and as far as I can tell, |
48 |
> only HPPA does it different so as I'm new to doing this on the HPPA |
49 |
> arch I'm not sure what you want instead. We did plan to do what was |
50 |
> intended; so, why is it atrocity? |
51 |
> |
52 |
> We should pursue consensus on consistent USE masking on the |
53 |
> profile.use.mask [1] thread as two different methods of which one |
54 |
> undocumented doesn't make much sense; anyhow, that's outside the |
55 |
> scope of this bug. |
56 |
|
57 |
As it has been discussed on this mailing list endlessly, there already |
58 |
is a consensus: |
59 |
|
60 |
1a) you drop the affected keywords, unless |
61 |
1b) this causes you to drop (many) more keywords on revdeps, in which |
62 |
case you can package.(use.)mask the relevant bits |
63 |
2) you inform the affected arch teams |
64 |
|
65 |
Step 2) could easily be done well in advance of 1/a). In the |
66 |
media-video/mpv case, nothing was stopping you from doing the most |
67 |
easy, single-line-of-code change to fix the issue, which was to drop |
68 |
the affected keywords. Instead you chose to edit a multitude of files |
69 |
in profiles/ without notification to the arch teams. |
70 |
|
71 |
> [1] |
72 |
> http://gentoo.2317880.n4.nabble.com/best-way-to-use-profiles-and-package-use-mask-td16465.html |
73 |
|
74 |
Well, you read my response there. Nothing has changed. devmanual hasn't |
75 |
changed either. What is your point here? |
76 |
|
77 |
|
78 |
jer |
79 |
|
80 |
|
81 |
[a] |
82 |
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-video/mpv/mpv-0.2.0.ebuild?view=log |
83 |
[b] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=488318#c5 |