Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

[Mark Loeser]

Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o> said:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> > <spyderous@g.o> wrote:
> > | Here's my proposal for dealing with modular X entering ~arch.
> >
> > What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild
> > pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it means that some
> > people will pick up unnecessary deps until all packages are ported, but
> > it avoids anyone having to see flashy red errors.
>
> The problem with that is that it removes all motivation to ever port the
> packages. They'll just stay that way forever, where forever means "until
> I threaten to remove that from the virtual," in which case we'll be in
> the same scenario we are now. Why? Because people have better things to
> do than fix stuff that isn't broken.

It'd be nice if you reconsidered this as it will minimize any breakage that
may occur.  Knowing that >800 packages are broken, and going to unmask it
knowing that just doesn't seem acceptable in my eyes.  ~arch isn't meant to
be "things are known to be broken."  It's meant to mean, we think all of this
is ready to be stable, which it certainly won't be in this case.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting toolchain x86)
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
                  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
                  http://www.halcy0n.com