1 |
I will shut up and wait. Sorry. |
2 |
|
3 |
Hasan Khalil wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On Sep 3, 2005, at 04:14, Grobian wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
>> My opinion here is that there is something wrong if portage isn't able |
8 |
>> to tell what it needs to run a package in ~ppc-macos. Maybe this is |
9 |
>> not easily fixable, and should we do some extra hacks to make the two |
10 |
>> worlds play nice again. However, I don't think having a fully ~arch |
11 |
>> system is equal to a user that runs a stable system and wants to grab |
12 |
>> one package from the unstable branch. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> We feel that you are absolutely correct here, and that a fundamental |
15 |
> capability of portage is to be able to tell _exactly_ what is necessary |
16 |
> in order to build/install/use a package. Unfortunately, portage makes |
17 |
> several assumptions in this process, and not all of these assumptions |
18 |
> are valid for the ppc-macos/~ppc-macos mixed case. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> As a solution, we feel as though it's high time that the ppc-macos |
21 |
> (stable) keyword is dropped entirely, in favor of ~ppc-macos (testing), |
22 |
> tree-wide. This would obviously solve the problem detailed by Fabian |
23 |
> above. There are several reasons that we feel this is a good idea, and |
24 |
> long overdue: |
25 |
> |
26 |
> * We don't have the manpower to fix, maintain or keep up with a stable |
27 |
> branch. |
28 |
> * The project is just too young, with too many fundamental (read: |
29 |
> system packages) aspects changing too frequently to keep up with a |
30 |
> stable branch without constantly breaking the |
31 |
> 30-days-without-bugs-before-stable 'rule'. |
32 |
> * Even the 'stable' branch frequently breaks (read: compile-time or |
33 |
> run-time errors in various packages), currently. |
34 |
> * Did we mention that we don't have enough manpower to fix, maintain or |
35 |
> keep up with a stable branch? |
36 |
> * We don't have a large enough user-base to justify bumping packages |
37 |
> from testing to stable by just waiting for the |
38 |
> 30-days-without-bugs-before-stable timeout to expire (this point was |
39 |
> previously discussed on this mailing list). |
40 |
> * Oh yeah, the manpower thing. |
41 |
> * As it is, we currently (or at the very least have, in the past, and |
42 |
> will, in the future) needlessly hold up older versions of various |
43 |
> packages from being removed from the portage tree because there is no |
44 |
> later version that has been marked ppc-macos (stable). |
45 |
> * No, really, we just don't have the manpower to fix, maintain or keep |
46 |
> up with a stable branch. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> In summary, we wish to extend a notion[1] that was previously mentioned |
49 |
> on this list, and put forth that we should immediately replace all |
50 |
> instances of the ppc-macos (stable) keyword in KEYWORDS with ~ppc-macos |
51 |
> (testing). |
52 |
> |
53 |
> So what's the verdict? |
54 |
> |
55 |
> - Hasan && Lina |
56 |
> |
57 |
> [1] That is, to hold off bumping packages from testing to stable. See |
58 |
> "On keywording ppc-macos", a thread started by Fabian Groffen on this |
59 |
> list. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.macosx/396 |
60 |
> |
61 |
> -- |
62 |
> |
63 |
> Hasan Khalil && Lina Pezzella |
64 |
> eBuild and Porting Co-Leads |
65 |
> Gentoo for Mac OS X |
66 |
> |
67 |
|
68 |
-- |
69 |
Fabian Groffen |
70 |
Gentoo for Mac OS X |
71 |
-- |
72 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |