Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@g.o>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] on stable and unstable ppc-macos
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:23:35
In Reply to: [gentoo-osx] on stable and unstable ppc-macos by Grobian
Grobian wrote:
> From a freshly reported bug:
Bug # may be useful just to serve as a reference.
> Reproducible: Always > Steps to Reproduce: > 1. Install gentoo for OSX and not be perfectly comfortable you did it > right.
Not comfortable with the install? Are our docs outdated or ambiguous?
> 2. Add ~ppc-macos to the keywords for the mediawiki-1.4.9.ebuild. > 3. ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~ppc-macos" emerge mediawiki
No problem so far.
> Here is where I want the discussion to start. I myself would have done > it exact the same way, and I see it happen a lot. In fact, I even think > this is the way the Gentoo docs advocate the use of ~arch.
Is the goal to test out an unkeyworded ebuild for keywording/porting? This looks like a good way to go for that purpose.
> In a recent discussion I found out this is, however, not the way some > other people see the use of ~arch. Instead they assume your whole > system is ~arch.
Indeed, mine is a ~ppc-macos portage system.
> This very bug reported might be fixed if the whole system would be > ~ppc-macos, however, the user doesn't want that. Instead, the user > wants to use an unstable package, to have a very isolated case, where an > unstable package lives as a stable one.
What is the bug, exactly? If they're trying to run an ~arch package on an arch system, this is how you do it. There will likely be dependencies to also be pulled from ~arch, but portage handles that AFAIK.
> My opinion here is that there is something wrong if portage isn't able > to tell what it needs to run a package in ~ppc-macos. Maybe this is not > easily fixable, and should we do some extra hacks to make the two worlds > play nice again. However, I don't think having a fully ~arch system is > equal to a user that runs a stable system and wants to grab one package > from the unstable branch. I consider the first case to be 'progressive' > (not in the ppc-macos sense) or 'bleeding edge' while the latter case is > more realistic and what happens in real life: 'controlled risk'.
Portage should handle this. As I understand it, portage doesn't care too much about arch/~arch. The KEYWORD just sets up some default packages masks, if you will, from which it can draw from known packages and their dependencies. When you get down to installing a package (regardless of keyword), portage makes sure the system and ebuild keywords match and then it starts building the dependency tree. The same checks must be made for each dep. If it was called something like # ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~arch" emerge foo/bar then for that run or portage, the system _is_ an ~arch system, meaning all deps will be pulled from ~arch. I'm not sure how it handles entries in the package.keywords file. The behavior may be different; feel free to chime in, anyone who knows. Be careful about your terms here. We currently have a use for the term "progressive". I believe I understand what you're saying about controlled risk; don't know if it would confuse anyone else.
> I like to straighten out this issue, so everyone knows what should be > done or not be done. I just assumed the only vision I knew was what > everyone has in mind, and this appears not to be like this. I think > it's directly related to QA and I feel my actions largely depend on it. > So, until I know what I'm doing is right or wrong, I won't do anything.
I'm afraid I don't understand what (if anything) needs to be done. Care to elaborate? -Nick Dimiduk -- gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-osx] on stable and unstable ppc-macos Grobian <grobian@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-osx] on stable and unstable ppc-macos Finn Thain <fthain@××××××××××××××××.au>