You better pick me as a victim, instead of an innocent, just interested
user on the mailing list.
Hasan Khalil wrote:
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
were
wrong 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 packages
and 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.
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X
--
[email protected] mailing list
