Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:34:21
Message-Id: 200601312029.27944.jstubbs@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X by Joshua Jackson
1 On Tuesday 31 January 2006 13:49, Joshua Jackson wrote:
2 > Mark Loeser <halcy0n <at> gentoo.org> writes:
3 > > Donnie Berkholz <spyderous <at> gentoo.org> said:
4 > > > Jason Stubbs wrote:
5 > > > > The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check
6 > > > > removed.
7 > > >
8 > > > Excellent. Works perfectly. Since we're failing on them, perhaps we can
9 > > > say "obsolete" instead of "deprecated"?
10 > >
11 > > Can we put this back to being a warning? It makes things a pain for arch
12 > > teams that are trying to mark a completely unrelated version of the
13 > > package.
14 >
15 > I will have to agree that this change has made it a pain to mark anything
16 > stable. I had 4 out of the 6 I did today bail out because of this. I took
17 > the simple easy fix and removed the check to stabalize the packages I needed
18 > to. I know we have people who want modular X yesterday, but causing trouble
19 > for dev's going about business that doesn't involve the modular problems
20 > directly is only going to cause resentment and frustration to all the teams
21 > involved.
22
23 Is there any need for the packages to go into stable without the X deps being
24 fixed? Why not just open a bug for the package maintainer and mark it against
25 whatever bug is requesting stabling of that package? Moving something to
26 stable that you know is going to be broken within a relatively short
27 timeframe seems like a very bad idea...
28
29 --
30 Jason Stubbs
31 --
32 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X Mark Loeser <halcy0n@g.o>