begin quote On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:17:04 +0100 Christian Gut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok, i can understand that, but what about masking it for ~arch or ~x86 > like those other things (glibc)? okay, I come into this discussion from a QA perspective: THAT IS NOT AN OPTION! *weilds cluebat* introducing -known-to-break- changes to ~x86 is once more NOT AN OPTION. ~x86 is not "developers playground where things should break and you're on your own if things dysfunct" ~x86 is -EBUILD- testing stage, as in the -software- and its known subdependencies -SHOULD- work, and unless you have a darn good reason (this isn't that. sorry, back to go) for introducing known-bork to ~x86 I shall have that persons head, ebuilds and other things slewed out to the lists and net. package.mask exists for this reason. Now, That I've had my fit, until you have a working upgrade path from vanilla 2.4.23 to 2.6 (Default config that enabled devfs is a nice idea; ) And all (Repeat) all sub-builds in the tree are working, or have fixed dependencies that they only can live on a system with 2.4 kernels, moving 2.6 to vanilla isn't an option. Yes, that means that somone has to try 2.6 on about three or four thousand packages. Albeit most of them are pure userspace, debuggers (Valgrind somone?) and kernel modules and such interfaces much be redocumented to work. Important change for example: anyone relying on pcmcia-cs -drivers- (I was, the cardbridge in 2.4 didnt reset properly at times) Will have to have a documented upgrade path, or they will be in the icy shallows with a broken system post-boot. So, that concludes my rant. Don't consider ~x86 to be your local broken playground. //Spider -- begin .signature This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
