1 |
Grobian wrote: |
2 |
> From a freshly reported bug: |
3 |
Bug # may be useful just to serve as a reference. |
4 |
|
5 |
> Reproducible: Always |
6 |
> Steps to Reproduce: |
7 |
> 1. Install gentoo for OSX and not be perfectly comfortable you did it |
8 |
> right. |
9 |
Not comfortable with the install? Are our docs outdated or ambiguous? |
10 |
|
11 |
> 2. Add ~ppc-macos to the keywords for the mediawiki-1.4.9.ebuild. |
12 |
> 3. ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~ppc-macos" emerge mediawiki |
13 |
No problem so far. |
14 |
|
15 |
> Here is where I want the discussion to start. I myself would have done |
16 |
> it exact the same way, and I see it happen a lot. In fact, I even think |
17 |
> this is the way the Gentoo docs advocate the use of ~arch. |
18 |
Is the goal to test out an unkeyworded ebuild for keywording/porting? |
19 |
This looks like a good way to go for that purpose. |
20 |
|
21 |
> In a recent discussion I found out this is, however, not the way some |
22 |
> other people see the use of ~arch. Instead they assume your whole |
23 |
> system is ~arch. |
24 |
Indeed, mine is a ~ppc-macos portage system. |
25 |
|
26 |
> This very bug reported might be fixed if the whole system would be |
27 |
> ~ppc-macos, however, the user doesn't want that. Instead, the user |
28 |
> wants to use an unstable package, to have a very isolated case, where an |
29 |
> unstable package lives as a stable one. |
30 |
What is the bug, exactly? If they're trying to run an ~arch package on |
31 |
an arch system, this is how you do it. There will likely be |
32 |
dependencies to also be pulled from ~arch, but portage handles that AFAIK. |
33 |
|
34 |
> My opinion here is that there is something wrong if portage isn't able |
35 |
> to tell what it needs to run a package in ~ppc-macos. Maybe this is not |
36 |
> easily fixable, and should we do some extra hacks to make the two worlds |
37 |
> play nice again. However, I don't think having a fully ~arch system is |
38 |
> equal to a user that runs a stable system and wants to grab one package |
39 |
> from the unstable branch. I consider the first case to be 'progressive' |
40 |
> (not in the ppc-macos sense) or 'bleeding edge' while the latter case is |
41 |
> more realistic and what happens in real life: 'controlled risk'. |
42 |
Portage should handle this. As I understand it, portage doesn't care |
43 |
too much about arch/~arch. The KEYWORD just sets up some default |
44 |
packages masks, if you will, from which it can draw from known packages |
45 |
and their dependencies. When you get down to installing a package |
46 |
(regardless of keyword), portage makes sure the system and ebuild |
47 |
keywords match and then it starts building the dependency tree. The |
48 |
same checks must be made for each dep. If it was called something like |
49 |
# ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~arch" emerge foo/bar then for that run or portage, |
50 |
the system _is_ an ~arch system, meaning all deps will be pulled from |
51 |
~arch. I'm not sure how it handles entries in the package.keywords |
52 |
file. The behavior may be different; feel free to chime in, anyone who |
53 |
knows. |
54 |
|
55 |
Be careful about your terms here. We currently have a use for the term |
56 |
"progressive". I believe I understand what you're saying about |
57 |
controlled risk; don't know if it would confuse anyone else. |
58 |
|
59 |
> I like to straighten out this issue, so everyone knows what should be |
60 |
> done or not be done. I just assumed the only vision I knew was what |
61 |
> everyone has in mind, and this appears not to be like this. I think |
62 |
> it's directly related to QA and I feel my actions largely depend on it. |
63 |
> So, until I know what I'm doing is right or wrong, I won't do anything. |
64 |
I'm afraid I don't understand what (if anything) needs to be done. Care |
65 |
to elaborate? |
66 |
|
67 |
-Nick Dimiduk |
68 |
-- |
69 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |