On Wed, 2006-07-06 at 18:41 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Arek (James Potts) wrote:
> > Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> >>> >=virtual/x11-7 is hiding breakage in ebuilds that are not ported for
> >>> modular X.
> >> I couldn't agree more, but I was forced to add this rather than allow
> >> unported ebuilds to break.
> > Hmmm...Looks to me like it would be a great idea to fix the unported
> > ebuilds.  Would it be possible to mark virtual/x11-7 as deprecated
> > (using enotice/ewarn or similar), in order to get people to port any
> > build relying on it to modular X?
> > 
> > The way I see it, once virtual/x11-7 has been deprecated for a while (6
> > months to a year) and most popular packages have been ported to modular
> > X, virtual/x11-7 and any packages still relying on it could be given
> > Last Rites.
> Hmm, I don't think so... There's been a plenty of time to do this when
> modular X has been package.masked, the remaining unported stuff didn't
> get much further even after it's been unmasked. There's been a
> (debatable) repoman check, which has been too annoying so devs nuked it
> for themselves, now it's non-fatal warning again (which is mostly being
> ignored).
> Soooo - I'd pretty much say until the real breakage is *visible* and
> users start to scream - not much will change. Making it visible could
> also help us differentiate between used and used stuff. If there's
> something unported and you get no bug, then probably noone uses the
> thing, nothing depends on it and it can be punted from the tree.

Is there a recent list of non-ported packages ? Maybe we should do a
last effort to port everything for a week or two and then package.mask
the packages that no one cares enough about to port them.

Olivier CrĂȘte
Gentoo Developer

gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Reply via email to