[gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Rainer Groesslinger]

Hello,

I have been looking around for sime time in various ebuilds since Gentoo
introduced the "stable" and "testing/unstable" feature...

Well, in general I think it is a very good idea but I don't think it is used
as it should be !

For example Maik "blizzy" Schreiber told me about
http://gentoo-stable.iq-computing.de which is something like a "voting
system" but almost nobody is using it (for example mozilla 1.2.1 only has
one vote although many thousand people are using it - with success) and if
you take a look at the ebuild you see that every mozilla ebuild with version
1.2.1 has the keyword ~x86 - so stable users don't get it although there's
no reason for calling Mozilla 1.2.1 "unstable"...

In my opinion http://gentoo-stable.iq-computing.de should be a more-or-less
official voting system for the packages or gentoo stable will end like
debian stable and I don't think Gentoo wants to go *that* stable :)

There are just not enough users and feedback pushing unstable packages to
stable from what I see...

There was/is talk about package.mask being removed in the future - good idea
but I think it should look like this

stable: KDE 3.0.5
unstable: KDE3.1RC5

stable: Mozilla 1.2.1
unstable: Mozilla 1.3a

and so on...In short: Gentoo stable should be as close as possible to what
the developers of the various applications call "stable" - why not believe
them ? ;p

Currently the package.mask carries packages which have a right to be called
unstable, e.g. XFree 4.2.99 and so on...
But the stable/unstable situation in some ebuilds is a bit confusing and
leading in the wrong direction if continued like this ?

Of course every distribution needs to test individual things, make some
changes here and there...And to avoid a bad stable tree I highly suggesst
using blizzy's system...

I didn't know of it, he just told me some minutes ago and I think it's a
great chance for people to vote for it etc. - if it's used and developers
set their ebuilds as 'stable' according to what people voted (or not)...


Just my opinion about current stable/unstable things...
Rainer



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Pieter Van den Abeele]

Begin forgot to cc gentoo-dev message:

On Sunday, Dec 15, 2002, at 13:56 Europe/Brussels, Rainer Groesslinger 
wrote:

> For example Maik "blizzy" Schreiber told me about
> http://gentoo-stable.iq-computing.de which is something like a "voting
> system" but almost nobody is using it (for example mozilla 1.2.1 only 
> has
> one vote although many thousand people are using it - with success) 
> and if
> you take a look at the ebuild you see that every mozilla ebuild with 
> version
> 1.2.1 has the keyword ~x86 - so stable users don't get it although 
> there's
> no reason for calling Mozilla 1.2.1 "unstable"...

AFAIK gentoo-stable currently is in the process of  being integrated 
into gentoo.org (and into bugzilla?). gentoo-stable.iq-computing.de is 
not official. It is only open to public for testing and for comments 
(from mostly gentoo devs, maybe some users). It would probably be a bit 
too soon to have many thousands of people use a system that is still 
under heavy development. You should ask maik about this in person, 
cause I don't know everything about its current state. But I do know it 
will be officially announced on www.gentoo.org if it is ready for 
everyone.

> In my opinion http://gentoo-stable.iq-computing.de should be a 
> more-or-less
> official voting system for the packages or gentoo stable will end like
> debian stable and I don't think Gentoo wants to go *that* stable :)

gentoo-stable was needed for the following reason: we needed a 
mechanism to be able to track which (unstable) ebuilds users have 
installed/tested and run great (or crashed their system). (Right now 
lot of devs mark an ebuild with ~x86 ~ppc ~alpha ~sparc ~mips... and 
never receive input from users to inform them if an ebuild works great 
or doesn't. That's why gentoo-stable is being created.) but like I 
said, it still is in the development/testing/open for comments stage 
and is probably not production ready (again...you should ask maik)

> There are just not enough users and feedback pushing unstable packages 
> to
> stable from what I see...

it's not in production stage yet so there's no need to announce this 
officially to everyone yet. We want user input, but I can imagine Maik 
doesn't want a few thousand people reporting everything. We don't want 
to slashdot maik's server. (That doesn't mean that you can't have a 
look at it and send your comments to this list or even to maik if you 
find a bug). Again: ask maik about the development status, but I think 
it's not production ready yet and in testing stage.

> There was/is talk about package.mask being removed in the future - 
> good idea
> but I think it should look like this
>
> stable: KDE 3.0.5
> unstable: KDE3.1RC5
>
> stable: Mozilla 1.2.1
> unstable: Mozilla 1.3a
>
> and so on...In short: Gentoo stable should be as close as possible to 
> what
> the developers of the various applications call "stable" - why not 
> believe
> them ? ;p

It's not really the app only that should be called 'stable' before it 
can appear as stable in gentoo. If the ebuild is broken, or does some 
weird stuff (or just needs to be tested) a stable app can be called 
unstable.  Gentoo is a metadistribution, that means that instead of 
sending users applications in binary form we give users executable 
(readable) instructions to build the Gentoo binaries themselves. These 
instructions can be called unstable if they are only recently 
introduced into portage and need to be tested first. but otherwise the 
stable/unstable thing does follow what the developers call their 
application (unless we think what they say is incorrect (happens when 
users report that the application breaks)

> Currently the package.mask carries packages which have a right to be 
> called
> unstable, e.g. XFree 4.2.99 and so on...
> But the stable/unstable situation in some ebuilds is a bit confusing 
> and
> leading in the wrong direction if continued like this ?

Can you give an example of these ebuilds?

I know there are some apps which are called unstable by their 
developer, and stable by us. But this happens only after a long period 
of testing/running the app.

> Of course every distribution needs to test individual things, make some
> changes here and there...And to avoid a bad stable tree I highly 
> suggest
> using blizzy's system...

Maik will be glad to hear that. But keep in mind that the system is 
probably only up for testing and not yet in production.

> Just my opinion about current stable/unstable things...
> Rainer

Pieter

--
Pieter Van den Abeele
pvdabeel@gentoo.org - pvdabeel@vub.ac.be


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Maik Schreiber]

> AFAIK gentoo-stable currently is in the process of  being integrated 
> into gentoo.org (and into bugzilla?).

While there are thoughts about integrating Gentoo Stable into Bugzilla, there are no efforts currently underway to do this (at least from
my side - I know nothing about Bugzilla internals).

> gentoo-stable.iq-computing.de is 
> not official. It is only open to public for testing and for comments 
> (from mostly gentoo devs, maybe some users). It would probably be a bit 
> too soon to have many thousands of people use a system that is still 
> under heavy development.

It's true that Gentoo Stable is under development, but that doesn't mean it's unusable at all. In fact, it works quite well for what is
there, and there's even more to come (as suggestions fly in).

> but like I 
> said, it still is in the development/testing/open for comments stage 
> and is probably not production ready (again...you should ask maik)

As I said above, the system is in a usable state, though not complete yet.
(OTOH, you can always add new stuff and never stop, right.)

> We want user input, but I can imagine Maik 
> doesn't want a few thousand people reporting everything. We don't want 
> to slashdot maik's server. (That doesn't mean that you can't have a 
> look at it and send your comments to this list or even to maik if you 
> find a bug).

If you ask me, I would _really_ like to see thousands of reports coming in each day.


As far as any "official" status is concerned, this is really not up to me. I've spoken with several people, regularly mail to -core about
it, and then some. Also there is the thought of integrating it into Bugzilla, or vice versa. (Actually, I don't think using Bugzilla is
such a nice idea in the first place, and integrating Gentoo Stable into it makes it even worse. But that's a different story.)

-- 
Maik Schreiber, Gentoo Linux Developer
http://www.gentoo.org
mailto:blizzy@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Pieter Van den Abeele]

Hi Rainer,

I forgot (again...) to cc gentoo-dev. I've resend my earlier message to 
the list and I'll cc my reply now too.

On Sunday, Dec 15, 2002, at 15:02 Europe/Brussels, Rainer Groesslinger 
wrote:
>
>>> Currently the package.mask carries packages which have a right to be
>>> called
>>> unstable, e.g. XFree 4.2.99 and so on...
>>> But the stable/unstable situation in some ebuilds is a bit confusing
>>> and
>>> leading in the wrong direction if continued like this ?
>>
>> Can you give an example of these ebuilds?
>>
>> I know there are some apps which are called unstable by their
>> developer, and stable by us. But this happens only after a long period
>> of testing/running the app.

> Let's take an application a lot of people use:
> Mozilla
> We have these ebuilds for Mozilla:
>
> mozilla-1.0-r3.ebuild
> mozilla-1.0.1-r3.ebuild
> mozilla-1.1-r1.ebuild
> mozilla-1.2.1-r1.ebuild
> mozilla-1.2.1-r2.ebuild
>
> 1.2.1-r1, 1.2.1-r2 and 1.1-r1 use ~x86 that means someone who uses 
> stable is
> getting 1.0.1-r3
> Does that make sense ? As you said the build process etc. is a reason 
> for
> calling something unstable, too, sure :)

There are different reasons for an ebuild to be called unstable:

- security
- upstream dev sells it as unstable
- testing
- building process fails

I this case I would say:

mozilla-1.1-r1.ebuild: Not sure why this is marked unstable (could be 
anything - i suspect either the upstream devs sell it as unstable, or 
it is still in testing (source code was patched only a few days ago))

mozilla-1.2.1-r1.ebuild: Was in testing fase (but apparently some minor 
problems were discovered and a new release was made) - only 8 days old

revision 1.4
date: 2002/12/15 10:44:21;  author: bjb;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -2
During removal of sparc64 keywords from the ebuilds a bad sed 
introduced problematic KEYWORDS line that contained an illegal 
character before the alpha keyword. Fixed.
----------------------------
revision 1.3
date: 2002/12/09 20:17:53;  author: azarah;  state: Exp;  lines: +14 -10
add more moznoxft checks; fix NSS headers not all installing
----------------------------
revision 1.2
date: 2002/12/09 04:33:20;  author: manson;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -2
12-08-02 Keyword change remove sparc64 Rodney Rees manson@gentoo.org
----------------------------
revision 1.1
date: 2002/12/08 21:39:49;  author: azarah;  state: Exp;
some bugfixes




mozilla-1.2.1-r2.ebuild: In testing fase now (only two days old)
----------------------------
revision 1.3
date: 2002/12/15 07:43:55;  author: azarah;  state: Exp;  lines: +3 -3
add missing Xrender include and lib dirs
----------------------------
revision 1.2
date: 2002/12/14 17:34:43;  author: azarah;  state: Exp;  lines: +4 -1
make sure old Xft and Xrender libs are removed
----------------------------
revision 1.1
date: 2002/12/14 17:26:07;  author: azarah;  state: Exp;
update Xft and Xrender.  add _moz to libXft and libXrender to try and 
fix the mozilla not always starting bug


> Perhaps not the perfect example but I doubt someone who is running 
> Mozilla
> 1.0.1 is running a more stable Mozilla than someone who is running 
> 1.2.1 (of
> course there are other things, too like in stable galeon etc. should 
> all be
> compatible to the used Mozilla version and so on[and current versions 
> of
> these apps are compatible with newer mozilla versions so that can't be 
> the
> reason for 1.0.1 being the latest 'stable').

I think in this case the ebuild author wanted to make sure mozilla-1.2 
build process works before marking the ebuild as stable. (see the 
changelog - there seem to be a lot of issues with it.) I don't know 
anything about Mozilla 1.1 (the authors comment sounded rather negative 
a few months ago - but maybe its time to mark this as stable unless if 
upstream devs sell it as unstable). Mozilla1.0 is apparently the only 
version that works without real problems on all computers right now.

> I believe you are right I just don't get it since I am not a Gentoo 
> dev but
> I just wondered...
>
> Rainer
>
> PS: You replied to me and not to the list, so I reply to you only 
> again -
> just a hint if it was unwanted

hehe

Pieter


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Maik Schreiber]

> I read your post and i had an idea, why not use the gentoo-stats to see 
> what people has installed on theyr machines and then if a lot of people 
> is installing the same stuff call that stuff "stable". I know there 
> should be some people always testing new software to make the usage 
> number increase and be promoted to the stable level, but this is going 
> to happen anyway.

If you mean marking ebuilds as "stable" automatically, I don't think that's such a good idea, for obvious reasons. However, it's possible
to automatically add "merged here" counters for those ebuilds in Gentoo Stable.

-- 
Maik Schreiber, Gentoo Linux Developer
http://www.gentoo.org
mailto:blizzy@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Saverio Vigni]

Rainer Groesslinger wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I have been looking around for sime time in various ebuilds since Gentoo
>introduced the "stable" and "testing/unstable" feature...
>  
>
I read your post and i had an idea, why not use the gentoo-stats to see 
what people has installed on theyr machines and then if a lot of people 
is installing the same stuff call that stuff "stable". I know there 
should be some people always testing new software to make the usage 
number increase and be promoted to the stable level, but this is going 
to happen anyway.

Saverio Vigni
www.hor-net.com


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[foser]

Rainer Groesslinger wrote:
> For example Maik "blizzy" Schreiber told me about
> http://gentoo-stable.iq-computing.de which is something like a "voting
> system" but almost nobody is using it (for example mozilla 1.2.1 only has
> one vote although many thousand people are using it - with success) and if
> you take a look at the ebuild you see that every mozilla ebuild with version
> 1.2.1 has the keyword ~x86 - so stable users don't get it although there's
> no reason for calling Mozilla 1.2.1 "unstable"...

It depends -possibly- on the xft-2 ebuild and that isn't marked stable 
yet, that's the reason.

- foser


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Maik Schreiber]

>>version
>>1.2.1 has the keyword ~x86 - so stable users don't get it although there's
>>no reason for calling Mozilla 1.2.1 "unstable"...
> 
> It depends -possibly- on the xft-2 ebuild and that isn't marked stable 
> yet, that's the reason.

If mozilla-1.2.1 is "unstable" because of _this_, I think that's an improper use of masking. There's really no point in masking something
because its _dependencies_ are masked. If you do this, you would have to check each dependency, and if all of them are "stable", you can
mask the package itself "stable" as well.

Instead, Portage should respect the "unstable" dependencies, and warn you that it can't install your "stable" package because some of its
dependencies are "unstable". (Portage already does that, which is good.)

So again, there's no point in masking a package "unstable" just because its dependencies are "unstable".

-- 
Maik Schreiber, Gentoo Linux Developer
http://www.gentoo.org
mailto:blizzy@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Jon Portnoy]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Maik Schreiber wrote:

[snip]
> 
> So again, there's no point in masking a package "unstable" just because its dependencies are "unstable".
> 
> -- 
> Maik Schreiber, Gentoo Linux Developer
> http://www.gentoo.org
> mailto:blizzy@gentoo.org
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 


Er? If the dependencies are marked unstable and the package isn't, nobody 
(or nobody only using stable keywords, I should say) can install it unless 
the dependencies are marked stable...

--
Jon Portnoy


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Maik Schreiber]

>> So again, there's no point in masking a package "unstable" just because its dependencies are "unstable".
> 
> Er? If the dependencies are marked unstable and the package isn't, nobody 
> (or nobody only using stable keywords, I should say) can install it unless 
> the dependencies are marked stable...

Exactly, that's what is intended. So you simply don't gain anything with marking the package itself "unstable" as well, except for more
work.

-- 
Maik Schreiber, Gentoo Linux Developer
http://www.gentoo.org
mailto:blizzy@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Matthew Walker]

Jon Portnoy said:
>
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Maik Schreiber wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> So again, there's no point in masking a package "unstable" just because
>> its dependencies are "unstable".
>>
>> --
>> Maik Schreiber, Gentoo Linux Developer
>> http://www.gentoo.org
>> mailto:blizzy@gentoo.org
>>
>> --
>> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>>
>
>
> Er? If the dependencies are marked unstable and the package isn't, nobody
> (or nobody only using stable keywords, I should say) can install it unless
>  the dependencies are marked stable...
>

True. But as soon as the dependencies get marked stable, they /will/ be able
to install it.

Also, in this case, the unstable dependency was purely an optional dependency.

> --
> Jon Portnoy
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Martin Schlemmer]

On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 22:34, Maik Schreiber wrote:
> >>version
> >>1.2.1 has the keyword ~x86 - so stable users don't get it although there's
> >>no reason for calling Mozilla 1.2.1 "unstable"...
> > 
> > It depends -possibly- on the xft-2 ebuild and that isn't marked stable 
> > yet, that's the reason.
> 
> If mozilla-1.2.1 is "unstable" because of _this_, I think that's an improper use of masking. There's really no point in masking something
> because its _dependencies_ are masked. If you do this, you would have to check each dependency, and if all of them are "stable", you can
> mask the package itself "stable" as well.
> 
> Instead, Portage should respect the "unstable" dependencies, and warn you that it can't install your "stable" package because some of its
> dependencies are "unstable". (Portage already does that, which is good.)
> 
> So again, there's no point in masking a package "unstable" just because its dependencies are "unstable".

Mozilla 1.2.1 is marked as testing, cause there are still some minor
issues with it.  Then, if anybody did mind checking, it do not
depend on x11-libs/xft, but compile it internally.  I have taken
much time to have its Xft2.0 'contained' ... you will see that its
not even libXft.so or libXrender.so anymore, but libXft_moz.so and
libXrender_moz.so ...  This change seems to fix some issues that
some  people had with it not starting, so it may be marked stable
in a bit if all goes well ...


-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Maik Schreiber]

>> Er? If the dependencies are marked unstable and the package isn't, nobody
>> (or nobody only using stable keywords, I should say) can install it unless
>>  the dependencies are marked stable...
>>
> 
> True. But as soon as the dependencies get marked stable, they /will/ be able
> to install it.

Yes, and purely automagically. No work on the package itself would need to be done (ie. marking it as "stable").

-- 
Maik Schreiber, Gentoo Linux Developer
http://www.gentoo.org
mailto:blizzy@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Maik Schreiber]

> Mozilla 1.2.1 is marked as testing, cause there are still some minor
> issues with it.  Then, if anybody did mind checking, it do not
> depend on x11-libs/xft, but compile it internally.  I have taken
> much time to have its Xft2.0 'contained' ... you will see that its
> not even libXft.so or libXrender.so anymore, but libXft_moz.so and
> libXrender_moz.so ...  This change seems to fix some issues that
> some  people had with it not starting, so it may be marked stable
> in a bit if all goes well ...

Sorry if this was causing confusion with you, but Mozilla was just an example. The discussion was about marking an otherwise stable package
as "unstable" because some of its dependencies were marked "unstable".

-- 
Maik Schreiber, Gentoo Linux Developer
http://www.gentoo.org
mailto:blizzy@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Martin Schlemmer]

On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 23:04, Maik Schreiber wrote:

> Sorry if this was causing confusion with you, but Mozilla was just an example. The discussion was about marking an otherwise stable package
> as "unstable" because some of its dependencies were marked "unstable".

NP =)


-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Matthew Walker]

foser said:
>
> And i'm not sure it's a good idea to stabilize top packages while some  of
> it's -needed- deps are still masked testing, i mean this will break
> things like -u world won't it ?

Yes, it would, currently. However, this is just an indication that portage
needs to skip updates that it can not satisfy the dependencies of, and
continue with the update instead of just dying.


Matthew
-- 
 Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=utoxin&p=main



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Matthew Walker]

foser said:
> Matthew Walker wrote:
>> Yes, it would, currently. However, this is just an indication that
>> portage needs to skip updates that it can not satisfy the dependencies
>> of, and continue with the update instead of just dying.
>
> Just to get this clear, does or doesn't it break nowadays? I don't do
> much upgrade worlds anymore, so i can't tell ;)
>

It still breaks.

> - foser
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[foser]

Maik Schreiber wrote:
> If mozilla-1.2.1 is "unstable" because of _this_, I think that's an improper use of masking. There's really no point in masking something
> because its _dependencies_ are masked. If you do this, you would have to check each dependency, and if all of them are "stable", you can
> mask the package itself "stable" as well.
> 
> Instead, Portage should respect the "unstable" dependencies, and warn you that it can't install your "stable" package because some of its
> dependencies are "unstable". (Portage already does that, which is good.)
> 
> So again, there's no point in masking a package "unstable" just because its dependencies are "unstable".

Hm, got it wrong and mozilla doesnt use the system xft anymore (this 
saves some trouble i agree with Az, but it has it's disadvantages as 
well). Anyway, altough most users see a pack as stable there may still 
be trouble, afaics here Azarah was still tweaking it, so it should be 
masked and if it was intertwined with xft-2 then it surely should be 
cause that's an extra unstable factor.

And i'm not sure it's a good idea to stabilize top packages while some 
of it's -needed- deps are still masked testing, i mean this will break 
things like -u world won't it ?

- foser

PS. (devs only) Is all this crossposting necessary? Just keep this in 
-dev only.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[foser]

Matthew Walker wrote:
> Yes, it would, currently. However, this is just an indication that portage
> needs to skip updates that it can not satisfy the dependencies of, and
> continue with the update instead of just dying.

Just to get this clear, does or doesn't it break nowadays? I don't do 
much upgrade worlds anymore, so i can't tell ;)

- foser


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Maik Schreiber]

> And i'm not sure it's a good idea to stabilize top packages while some 
> of it's -needed- deps are still masked testing, i mean this will break 
> things like -u world won't it ?

Yes, but this is a problem in Portage (emerge). It really shouldn't break.

> PS. (devs only) Is all this crossposting necessary?

In my opinion, I think it is.

-- 
Maik Schreiber, Gentoo Linux Developer
http://www.gentoo.org
mailto:blizzy@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[foser]

Maik Schreiber wrote:
>>And i'm not sure it's a good idea to stabilize top packages while some 
>>of it's -needed- deps are still masked testing, i mean this will break 
>>things like -u world won't it ?
> 
> 
> Yes, but this is a problem in Portage (emerge). It really shouldn't break.

So, we're talking features not in portage yet. As it is imho it is 
better to mask top packages with masked deps.

- foser


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list