| 1 |
Finn Thain wrote: |
| 2 |
> In general, it would then be safer for a stable end-user to do the |
| 3 |
> occasional emerge from ~ppc-macos (an idea I like a lot), and it would |
| 4 |
> mean that devs did not have to uniformly adopt ~ppc-macos (which is is not |
| 5 |
> great for QA), and it would mean one less reason to drop the ppc-macos |
| 6 |
> keyword (I'm trying criticise that proposal constructively, as I realise |
| 7 |
> that its motivation is important.) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Let me quote a message from -dev: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
| 12 |
>> On 5/9/2005 13:41:54, Jason Stubbs (jstubbs@g.o) wrote: |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>>>On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>>>Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 17 |
>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>>>If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of |
| 19 |
>>>>>package.mask. ~arch means "candidate for going stable after more |
| 20 |
>>>>>testing", not "might work". |
| 21 |
>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>>It's a bit of both. When you put a package into ~arch, it's in |
| 23 |
>>>>"testing", so that says it needs further "testing" since there still |
| 24 |
>>>>could be a not yet discovered bug, right? |
| 25 |
>>> |
| 26 |
>>>Testing of the ebuild rather than of the package, though. This is the |
| 27 |
>>>point where people sometimes get confused. |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> That'd be me then :) |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> So we're talking about correctness of ebuilds (correct dependencies, |
| 33 |
>> use flag logic etc) and not whether the package actually works in depth. |
| 34 |
>> The latter is what caused me to suggest drawing together a large team of |
| 35 |
>> user-testers managed by arch-team devs. Correctness of ebuilds takes |
| 36 |
>> us back to a dev role and the ebuild quiz, since it's necessary to |
| 37 |
>> understand ebuilds to criticise them. |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> After a rather heated discussion a while back, I came up with this |
| 41 |
> definition: |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> - -arch :: the end-user software is/might be flakey |
| 44 |
> ~arch :: the ebuild is/might be flakey but the software is good |
| 45 |
> arch :: its all good :) |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Nathan |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
I was/am one of the people to have the misconception that ~arch means |
| 50 |
the ebuild is fine (why else do I test it for in any possible situation) |
| 51 |
but the software may be buggy. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
The only difference between ~arch and arch is that the ebuild might |
| 54 |
suck! Now it suddenly makes sense that such ebuild is being stabled |
| 55 |
after 30 days, because the assumption is there that the software being |
| 56 |
installed itself is stable, as upstream called it stable. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Now I don't think this particular quote should be taken as 'the law', |
| 59 |
but it nicely shows that even on the base of Gentoo, the correct |
| 60 |
interpretation for ~arch and arch is not really known. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
-- |
| 64 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 65 |
Gentoo for Mac OS X |
| 66 |
-- |
| 67 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
Archives