| 1 |
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:53:28 +0800 |
| 2 |
Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 19 April 2013 21:30, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 +0000 (UTC) |
| 7 |
> > "Ben de Groot (yngwin)" <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > > Index: package.mask |
| 10 |
> > > =================================================================== |
| 11 |
> > > RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask,v |
| 12 |
> > > retrieving revision 1.14667 |
| 13 |
> > > retrieving revision 1.14668 |
| 14 |
> > > diff -u -r1.14667 -r1.14668 |
| 15 |
> > > --- package.mask 19 Apr 2013 06:20:50 -0000 1.14667 |
| 16 |
> > > +++ package.mask 19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0000 1.14668 |
| 17 |
> > [...] |
| 18 |
> > > @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@ |
| 19 |
> > > # Non-maintainer ebuild with experimental multilib features |
| 20 |
> > > # masked for further testing |
| 21 |
> > > =media-libs/freetype-2.4.11-r2 |
| 22 |
> > > +=media-libs/fontconfig-2.10.2-r1 |
| 23 |
> > > |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > Is there any real reason behind this mask I may have missed ? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> This ebuild, with multilib features, was committed without my consent, |
| 29 |
> while I am the de facto maintainer of freetype and fontconfig (other |
| 30 |
> devs in fonts herd are inactive). I don't want to deal with bug |
| 31 |
> reports because of this. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Fair enough, but there is a lack of coordination there (who started the |
| 34 |
mess is irrelevant), leaving as only choices: unmask ft/fc or mask a |
| 35 |
good part of the multilib x11 stuff. The current situation is broken. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I suppose you talked with Michal about this and couldn't reach an |
| 38 |
agreement, like him joining the fonts herd, or at least the mail alias |
| 39 |
to monitor ft/fc bugs. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
If you want I can join the fonts herd also, I already have a foot in |
| 42 |
there for some small packages used within texlive anyway. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> And I'd rather see this developed in an overlay instead, as I have |
| 45 |
> said before. We also need more consensus on this multilib approach |
| 46 |
> before I am happy to support this. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I believe we reached consensus last time. Also, I believe we are at the |
| 49 |
step "it is mature enough to give it a wide ~arch testing"; otherwise |
| 50 |
we may just repeat multilib-portage history and have it in an overlay |
| 51 |
for several years to never give it wide adoption in the end. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
[...] |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Alexis. |
Archives