Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

[Olivier Crete <tester@gentoo.org>]

On Tue, 2006-24-01 at 13:32 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> >>> <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>> What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild
> >>> pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it means that some
> >>> people will pick up unnecessary deps until all packages are ported, but
> >>> it avoids anyone having to see flashy red errors.
> >> The problem with that is that it removes all motivation to ever port the
> >> packages. They'll just stay that way forever, where forever means "until
> >> I threaten to remove that from the virtual," in which case we'll be in
> >> the same scenario we are now. Why? Because people have better things to
> >> do than fix stuff that isn't broken.
> > 
> > It'd be nice if you reconsidered this as it will minimize any breakage that
> > may occur.  Knowing that >800 packages are broken, and going to unmask it
> > knowing that just doesn't seem acceptable in my eyes.  ~arch isn't meant to
> > be "things are known to be broken."  It's meant to mean, we think all of this
> > is ready to be stable, which it certainly won't be in this case.
> 
> No, it won't. It will just postpone the same breakage, as I said above.
> You haven't provided any logic or backup to your contrary statement,
> just said that somehow a large portion of the other 800 will magically
> get ported.

Why not just postpone the unmasking by a few days... and lets say give
48h from now for all devs to fix their apps and have the volunteers
finish off the rest. Btw, I'll volunteer to help if I have any free time
this week. And then the unmasking can be much less painful. 

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list