On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 18:18:43 +0000
[email protected] wrote:
> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. Also, do not reply via email to the person
> whose email is mentioned below. To comment on this bug, please visit:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=488318
>
> Tom Wijsman (TomWij) <[email protected]> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Summary|media-video/mpv broken
> |media-video/mpv[luajit] - |dependency on |Keyword
> request on alpha, |dev-lang/luajit:2 |arm, ppc, ppc64, sparc
>
> --- Comment #10 from Tom Wijsman (TomWij) <[email protected]> ---
> (In reply to Jeroen Roovers from comment #5)
> > No, you broke it for HPPA users and for devs working on mpv.
>
> Yes, HPPA only because of the comment in package.use.mask; no
> problems for devs.
"Breaking the tree" in this case quite literally means "using repoman
commit --force" because repoman would not otherwise let you do that[a].
As I explained to you in comment #5[b] you should have simply dropped
the keywords instead of messing with the profiles and you should have
notified the affected arch teams (all of them):
> > Sometimes you may need to remove a keyword because of new unresolved
> > dependencies. If you do this, you *must* file a bug notifying the
> > relevant arch teams."[1]
>
> For all arches Nikoli planned to do this (#gentoo-desktop; to avoid
> filing duplicate, I didn't); he delayed this, but this should not
> form a problem since the temporary masks are in place. It does on
> HPPA, as I am not permitted to remove the keyword on the USE flag.
>
> > *After* you broke the tree.
>
> The comment literally says to file a bug instead of touching it; so,
> yes, as a result of what I am requested to do by that comment the
> tree breaks for HPPA.
You didn't file a bug report and you committed a broken ebuild.
> That's what the file is designed to solve; and as far as I can tell,
> only HPPA does it different so as I'm new to doing this on the HPPA
> arch I'm not sure what you want instead. We did plan to do what was
> intended; so, why is it atrocity?
>
> We should pursue consensus on consistent USE masking on the
> profile.use.mask [1] thread as two different methods of which one
> undocumented doesn't make much sense; anyhow, that's outside the
> scope of this bug.
As it has been discussed on this mailing list endlessly, there already
is a consensus:
1a) you drop the affected keywords, unless
1b) this causes you to drop (many) more keywords on revdeps, in which
case you can package.(use.)mask the relevant bits
2) you inform the affected arch teams
Step 2) could easily be done well in advance of 1/a). In the
media-video/mpv case, nothing was stopping you from doing the most
easy, single-line-of-code change to fix the issue, which was to drop
the affected keywords. Instead you chose to edit a multitude of files
in profiles/ without notification to the arch teams.
> [1]
> http://gentoo.2317880.n4.nabble.com/best-way-to-use-profiles-and-package-use-mask-td16465.html
Well, you read my response there. Nothing has changed. devmanual hasn't
changed either. What is your point here?
jer
[a]
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-video/mpv/mpv-0.2.0.ebuild?view=log
[b] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=488318#c5
