[gentoo-dev] Touching profiles
* Theo Chatzimichos : > 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=2&chap=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
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 Chantziaras: > >> 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] 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 Chantziaras: 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.
[gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: Portage should not mask packages globally, but only for some arches
Hi,
Nikos Chantziaras :
> 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
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode
http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-ruby/IceRuby
# Hans de Graaff (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
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.
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
