Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: Portage should not mask packages globally, but only for some arches
W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:
It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64 because
it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it would be
beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for arches that
don't affect them at all.
It seems better if the packages can be unmasked for x86 and amd64 and
only kept hard-masked for ppc/ppc64 while they wait for keywords.
Otherwise, all arches will feel the effect of the slowest one without
there being a need for this.
I don't know what gave you the idea that ppc* has anything to do with
masking/unmasking of KDE-4.6. Just 2 facts:
1) you can unmask anything by using /etc/portage/package.unmask,
therefore nothing can ever hold *you* back
2) arches already have independent package.mask files, see
${PORTDIR}/profiles/arch/powerpc/package.mask for an example.
Best regards,
Kacper Kowalik
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: Portage should not mask packages globally, but only for some arches
On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:
It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64 because
it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it would be
beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for arches that
don't affect them at all.
[...]
I don't know what gave you the idea that ppc* has anything to do with
masking/unmasking of KDE-4.6. Just 2 facts:
1) you can unmask anything by using /etc/portage/package.unmask,
therefore nothing can ever hold *you* back
This is about all users in general. Not just me :-) If putting stuff
in /etc/portage/package.unmask should be considered the recommended
solution for this, then we wouldn't need a masking system in the first
place. When something is hard-masked, it tells the user we're not
considering it safe or working yet.
2) arches already have independent package.mask files, see
${PORTDIR}/profiles/arch/powerpc/package.mask for an example.
It seems they aren't used though. I mainly posted this because of the
discussion on this page:
http://blog.tampakrap.gr/kde-sc-4-6-0-in-gentoo
It seems devs have can't modify arch/powerpc/package.mask on their own?
If not, this looks like a problem, delaying packages for all arches.
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-ruby/IceRuby
# Hans de Graaff gra...@gentoo.org (02 Feb 2011) # Masked for removal in 30 days. Superseded by # dev-libs/Ice[ruby]. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: Portage should not mask packages globally, but only for some arches
Hi,
Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de:
On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:
It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64
because it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it
would be beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for
arches that don't affect them at all.
[...]
I don't know what gave you the idea that ppc* has anything to do
with masking/unmasking of KDE-4.6. Just 2 facts:
1) you can unmask anything by using /etc/portage/package.unmask,
therefore nothing can ever hold *you* back
This is about all users in general. Not just me :-) If putting
stuff in /etc/portage/package.unmask should be considered the
recommended solution for this, then we wouldn't need a masking system
in the first place. When something is hard-masked, it tells the user
we're not considering it safe or working yet.
2) arches already have independent package.mask files, see
${PORTDIR}/profiles/arch/powerpc/package.mask for an example.
It seems they aren't used though. I mainly posted this because of
the discussion on this page:
http://blog.tampakrap.gr/kde-sc-4-6-0-in-gentoo
It seems devs have can't modify arch/powerpc/package.mask on their
own? If not, this looks like a problem, delaying packages for all
arches.
Don't be so impatient...Debian users wait two years for a new major
version of KDE. This is also a general hard mask for wider testing, it
usually gets moved further down the line to individual profiles.
V-Li
--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode
URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: Portage should not mask packages globally, but only for some arches
On 02/02/2011 11:01 PM, Christian Faulhammer wrote: Hi, Nikos Chantziarasrea...@arcor.de: On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote: W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze: It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64 because it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it would be beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for arches that don't affect them at all. [...] Don't be so impatient...Debian users wait two years for a new major version of KDE. I know. Though Debian is not a rolling-release distro, like Gentoo is. Don't get me wrong though; it's not that I'm impatient. I already unmasked it here. I brought this up simply because it seemed like a needless inefficiency that the popular arches get stalled by the less popular ones. That's all really, so hopefully no one will read more into it than there is.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: Portage should not mask packages globally, but only for some arches
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 23:34:07 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 02/02/2011 11:01 PM, Christian Faulhammer wrote: Hi, Nikos Chantziarasrea...@arcor.de: On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote: W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze: It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64 because it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it would be beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for arches that don't affect them at all. [...] Don't be so impatient...Debian users wait two years for a new major version of KDE. I know. Though Debian is not a rolling-release distro, like Gentoo is. Don't get me wrong though; it's not that I'm impatient. I already unmasked it here. I brought this up simply because it seemed like a needless inefficiency that the popular arches get stalled by the less popular ones. That's all really, so hopefully no one will read more into it than there is. For the record, Kacper told me today that every developer is allowed to touch ppc/ppc64 profiles. Archies that don't want others to touch their profiles should mention it in the devmanual. I was not aware of that, I thought that !arch member is not allowed to touch arch-specific profiles. Anyway, KDE 4.6 will be unmasked tomorrow. -- Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap) Gentoo KDE/Qt, Planet, Overlays signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Touching profiles
* Theo Chatzimichos tampak...@gentoo.org: For the record, Kacper told me today that every developer is allowed to touch ppc/ppc64 profiles. Archies that don't want others to touch their profiles should mention it in the devmanual. I was not aware of that, I thought that !arch member is not allowed to touch arch-specific profiles. The situation is complicated: - The devmanual[1] reference is wrong. I wonder where it comes from. The devmanual wasn't considered policy (mainly because it was started by ca connection devmanual - policy creeps in. *shrug* - Some arch teams don't want other devs to touch their profiles: DON'T TOUCH THIS FILE. Instead, file a bug and assign it to... But this arch is neiter mentioned in the handbook nor in the manual: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=5#doc_chap4 http://devmanual.gentoo.org/archs/index.html - The devhandbook[2] is also kind of unmaintained. Devmanual and -handbook are waiting for a merge AFAIR. - And there is already a stalled bug[3] about Developer Handbook should document how/when to touch arch profiles' files Summary: You do it wrong either way. [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org [2] http://devrel.gentoo.org/handbook [3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/304435 -- Thanks
