Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild behaviour?

[Michael Cummings]

Speaking from personal experience, sometimes an ebuild needs to be pulled when, no matter how new it is, the source it points to no longer exists (look at dev-perl sometime if that doesn't make sense)

On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 13:57:08 -0400
Stewart <bdlists@×××××.org> wrote:

> Hello, all;
>
> I was wondering if there exists any formal policy on the
> addition/removal (emphasis on the latter) of ebuilds?
>
> Two examples that come immediately to mind in recent past are LICQ and
> Mozilla. In the case of LICQ, a 1.2.6 ebuild was committed which did not
> work (for whatever reason a copy of the 1.2.4-r2 ebuild failed to
> install the plugins correctly, rendering the GUI unusable), and at the
> same time - before any testing was done to 1.2.6 - the (stable, tested)
> 1.2.4-r2 ebuild, and all prior to it, were removed from the tree.
>
> In the case of Mozilla, its ebuilds have remained behind the releases
> (alpha/beta/release candidate) for some time, remaining fixed at 1.3. In
> a previous rsync I noticed a 1.4b ebuild, but in a subsequent rsync that
> ebuild was removed from the tree. I was anxious to hack away at it and
> see if it would work and possibly be portable for the 1.4rc1 version.
>
> So what is the policy on removing stable, tested ebuilds, and even for
> removing newer ebuilds which haven't had a chance to be tested? In the
> case of LICQ, shouldn't that be handled by ~arch? In the case of
> Mozilla, package.mask until the ebuild installed, and ~arch afterwards
> for testing?
>
> Portage is technologically fantastic, but I'm afraid that if the means
> aren't used properly, we may find ourselves with a frustrated user (and
> developer) base. :/
>
> Thoughts? Opinions?
>
> --
> http://www.snerk.org/
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list