On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, 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.
If that is the case, shouldn't qt be hard masked? If you move everything from arch to ~arch, you will be doing a lot more of that. > 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'. This is nonsense. There are some packages that are keyworded arch for a reason. i.e. they are different than those keyworded ~arch. If you are saying that there is no difference, maybe you should do some homework. I really don't think the semantic problems here are worth pursuing. If there is a problem with calling certain ebuilds "stable", that is because there are bugs. So what? At least once a month I find a new bug in 10.3.9, which I installed when it was released. > >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. And I explained how to avoid pressure to "keep up", in my previous messages. As yet, no one has responded the questions and concerns raised there-in. In as much as you and Lina have explained the rationale for such a retrograde step, that rationale permits better alternatives. Either that is because you haven't published your rationale completely, or it is because your proposal is inferior. I understand your predicament, I'm just trying to avoid what I see is an over-rereaction to it. Hence the debate. > I don't mean to sound rude, here; I apologize in advance if I do. Please > don't take any of this personally. No offence taken. -f -- [email protected] mailing list
