On Thursday, 8 June 2006 5:15, Olivier Crete wrote: > 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.
games-roguelike/slashem is one package that I know of. It should have very similar dependencies to nethack. -- Raymond Lewis Rebbeck -- firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list