Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 07:17:03
Message-Id: 200601251608.07390.jstubbs@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Wednesday 25 January 2006 15:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:28:09 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
3 > <spyderous@g.o> wrote:
4 > | > * The clean solution is the solution originally proposed to this
5 > | > list, and the reason we are using new style virtuals.
6 > |
7 > | No, this is wrong. The reason we are using new style virtuals is so we
8 > | could have a versioning in what provides virtual/x11. Namely, 6.8 or
9 > | older.
10 >
11 > Uh, given that you can do that with old style virtuals, methinks that
12 > isn't the case...
13
14 Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The atom
15 "virtual/x11" cannot be limited to specific versions on its own with old
16 style virtuals.
17
18 > | > * You are doing this because you believe that it is better to get
19 > | > every package ported over extremely quickly rather than having the
20 > | > odd package with extra unnecessary listed dependencies, and you do
21 > | > not consider the impact upon our users to be relevant.
22 > |
23 > | I consider ~arch users to have agreed to help test and fix new things.
24 > | This is included. I would not do the same thing to our stable tree, or
25 > | if we only had a stable tree.
26 > |
27 > | Yes, I do think it is better to have a quick solution and let some of
28 > | our ~arch users see a couple of blocks, for which they will file bugs.
29 > | Then these bugs will be fixed within a day, and those users will again
30 > | have working systems.
31 >
32 > ...or you could do things as originally planned, and have no
33 > non-working systems at all and the only consequences for end users will
34 > be a small number of extra packages (that they previously had installed
35 > anyway as part of hugeass X) being pulled in.
36
37 The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed, right?
38 Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just institute a policy
39 that no new packages can go into stable with a virtual/x11 dependency? It
40 could even be easily enforcable if necessary.
41
42 --
43 Jason Stubbs
44 --
45 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

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