Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Lina Pezzella <J4rg0n@g.o>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] on stable and unstable ppc-macos
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 03:25:40
Message-Id: 4BF5BDDF-93C0-481C-A40D-499192DFE648@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] on stable and unstable ppc-macos by Finn Thain
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4
5 On Sep 4, 2005, at 10:01 PM, Finn Thain wrote:
6
7 >> Uh, no? The x11-libs/qt deps are indeed correct. Please do your
8 >> homework
9 >> before posting to this list; you should read up on Gentoo policy
10 >> about
11 >> DEPENDS and packages that are in 'system', such as baselayout.
12 >>
13 >
14 > If that is the case, shouldn't qt be hard masked? If you move
15 > everything
16 > from arch to ~arch, you will be doing a lot more of that.
17
18 I don't think you understand the difference between arch and ~arch,
19 nor the use of package.mask. QT is marked ~arch for several reasons
20 1) it compiles and works on multiple unstable systems, 2) it has not
21 been tested against a stable environment and has not been bug-free
22 for 30 days, thus it cannot be "arch". If you wish to try to use a
23 ~arch package on an arch system, that's fine. Just don't yell when it
24 breaks.
25
26 >
27 >
28 >> Should Gentoo policy change, I would have absolutely no problem (and
29 >> would actually encourage) adding 'virtual/baselayout' to DEPENDS
30 >> where
31 >> necessary. Brian Harring has also discussed this on gentoo-dev, in
32 >> relation to 'BDEPENDS'.
33 >>
34 >>
35 >>> Well, moving stable packages to testing also creates a misnomer.
36 >>>
37 >>
38 >> Again, do your homework. Stable packages are a subset of testing
39 >> packages for any given arch. By specifying '~arch' in your
40 >> KEYWORDS (in
41 >> /etc/make.conf), you are actually implicitly specifying 'arch'.
42 >>
43 >
44 > This is nonsense. There are some packages that are keyworded arch
45 > for a
46 > reason. i.e. they are different than those keyworded ~arch.
47
48 Actually, they're not different. The packages are exactly the same.
49 "arch" designates that the package has been sufficiently tested and
50 bug-free for long enough to be considered "stable".
51
52 > If you are
53 > saying that there is no difference, maybe you should do some homework.
54
55 ...
56
57 > I
58 > really don't think the semantic problems here are worth pursuing.
59 > If there
60 > is a problem with calling certain ebuilds "stable", that is because
61 > there
62 > are bugs. So what? At least once a month I find a new bug in
63 > 10.3.9, which
64 > I installed when it was released.
65
66 Then in my understanding of proper QA, 10.3.9 should not be "stable"
67 either. Seriously though, we have a lot more bugs. I am not
68 comfortable saying something is stable when it is clearly buggy.
69
70 >>> Can someone explain what is to be gained from this that cannot be
71 >>> achieved with automated builds (e.g. to weed out the badly broken
72 >>> stable packages and check the deps of the ~ppc-macos packages);
73 >>> as well
74 >>> as a policy to relax the "30 day" rule?
75 >>>
76 >>
77 >> What automated builds? AFAIK, we don't have an automated build
78 >> system,
79 >> and one won't exist for a Real Long Time(tm). Once it does, I'm
80 >> all for
81 >> keeping a stable branch. Until then, I find that keeping a stable
82 >> branch
83 >> is way more work than we can keep up with, for all the reasons
84 >> cited in
85 >> my previous message(s) to this list.
86 >>
87 >
88 > And I explained how to avoid pressure to "keep up", in my previous
89 > messages. As yet, no one has responded the questions and concerns
90 > raised
91 > there-in.
92
93 Sure, an automated system is a great idea. The problem is that it
94 requires a lot of work to build one. It is in the works for now, but
95 it's not here yet, so until then we have to deal with what we've got.
96 Once we have an automated system and our setup isn't as dynamic, we
97 can easily add support for a stable configuration.
98
99 - --Lina Pezzella
100 Ebuild & Porting Co-Lead
101 Gentoo for OS X
102
103 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
104 Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin)
105
106 iD8DBQFDG7qXNJ9STR9DbYERAv4uAJ9uMgXW9MNrUidztGeEgFUmk0YNJwCfe97I
107 oVh0UxOAIEBd1/QDneSsK9g=
108 =/+Uo
109 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
110 --
111 gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list

Replies

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