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 |