On Sep 4, 2005, at 24:00, Finn Thain wrote:
Are there known bugs with the ~ppc-macos baselayout?
Yes and no. There are design issues still in the works with it. I think that the general consensus is that it's definitely _not_ ready for prime-time, yet.
Yes, and if devs used stable, that would improve QA also. If the dev that keyworded qt was using stable, s/he would have found that the qt deps werewrong because they don't include the baselayout requirement.
Uh, no? The x11-libs/qt deps are indeed correct. Please do your homework before posting to this list; you should read up on Gentoo policy about DEPENDS and packages that are in 'system', such as baselayout.
Should Gentoo policy change, I would have absolutely no problem (and would actually encourage) adding 'virtual/baselayout' to DEPENDS where necessary. Brian Harring has also discussed this on gentoo-dev, in relation to 'BDEPENDS'.
Well, moving stable packages to testing also creates a misnomer.
Again, do your homework. Stable packages are a subset of testing packages for any given arch. By specifying '~arch' in your KEYWORDS (in /etc/make.conf), you are actually implicitly specifying 'arch'.
Can someone explain what is to be gained from this that cannot be achieved with automated builds (e.g. to weed out the badly broken stable packagesand check the deps of the ~ppc-macos packages); as well as a policy to relax the "30 day" rule?
What automated builds? AFAIK, we don't have an automated build system, and one won't exist for a Real Long Time(tm). Once it does, I'm all for keeping a stable branch. Until then, I find that keeping a stable branch is way more work than we can keep up with, for all the reasons cited in my previous message(s) to this list.
I don't mean to sound rude, here; I apologize in advance if I do. Please don't take any of this personally.
-- Hasan Khalil eBuild and Porting Co-Lead Gentoo for Mac OS X
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
