On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 23:19 +0000, Stuart Herbert wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:16 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile. This would > > not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default. > > With apache being such a popular package, having it fail from a default > > stage3 installation reflects poorly on us all. If I haven't heard any > > good objections by November 30th, I'll make the change. This will *not* > > be retroactive to any previous release profiles. > > I must be missing something. How is adding the apache2 USE flag the > right solution to this problem with users trying to install apache v1?
*sigh* "This would not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default." Did I ever even imply that this would resolve problems with users trying to install apache v1? Di I ever say that this was a solution for them in any way? Did I not also mention that this would *not* be retroactive? Here's the deal. We have a new user that installs Gentoo. After installing Gentoo, he tries to "emerge nagios" and it dies on building apache over a bug that has been known for some time and still isn't resolved. How exactly does that make us look? How exactly does that make Release Engineering look when a "default install" cannot even install apache properly? APACHE!!! Whether we are responsible for apache or not, we *are* responsible for the release. Having things completely broken in the default install is *not* acceptable. The bug was reported in June and while there has been some action in the bug, no fix has been issued. Again, this is *not* acceptable. Now, because of this, it is my determination that we have a serious problem that *will* affect the 2006.0 release, and I am trying to do something proactive to prevent it. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
