From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15615 invoked by uid 1002); 1 Jun 2003 18:54:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 26194 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2003 18:54:38 -0000 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:54:32 -0400 From: Michael Cummings To: Stewart Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-Id: <20030601145432.13f52a68.mcummings@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <3EDA3E74.5030801@snerk.org> References: <3EDA3E74.5030801@snerk.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.11claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="=.B0gF7N:9J(86uz" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild behaviour? X-Archives-Salt: a751df12-4777-4e1a-a64a-c18d056c6f61 X-Archives-Hash: 902364db2d6369e843c7ba6773e87886 --=.B0gF7N:9J(86uz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Speaking from personal experience, sometimes an ebuild needs to be pulled when, no matter how new it is, the source it points to no longer exists (look at dev-perl sometime if that doesn't make sense) On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 13:57:08 -0400 Stewart wrote: > Hello, all; > > I was wondering if there exists any formal policy on the > addition/removal (emphasis on the latter) of ebuilds? > > Two examples that come immediately to mind in recent past are LICQ and > Mozilla. In the case of LICQ, a 1.2.6 ebuild was committed which did not > work (for whatever reason a copy of the 1.2.4-r2 ebuild failed to > install the plugins correctly, rendering the GUI unusable), and at the > same time - before any testing was done to 1.2.6 - the (stable, tested) > 1.2.4-r2 ebuild, and all prior to it, were removed from the tree. > > In the case of Mozilla, its ebuilds have remained behind the releases > (alpha/beta/release candidate) for some time, remaining fixed at 1.3. In > a previous rsync I noticed a 1.4b ebuild, but in a subsequent rsync that > ebuild was removed from the tree. I was anxious to hack away at it and > see if it would work and possibly be portable for the 1.4rc1 version. > > So what is the policy on removing stable, tested ebuilds, and even for > removing newer ebuilds which haven't had a chance to be tested? In the > case of LICQ, shouldn't that be handled by ~arch? In the case of > Mozilla, package.mask until the ebuild installed, and ~arch afterwards > for testing? > > Portage is technologically fantastic, but I'm afraid that if the means > aren't used properly, we may find ourselves with a frustrated user (and > developer) base. :/ > > Thoughts? Opinions? > > -- > http://www.snerk.org/ > > > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list --=.B0gF7N:9J(86uz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+2kvuq1ztTp5/Ti4RAkuLAKChFhJYVtupWfTFllZela3zipZYlQCeK4oO QMnMFxw5i+G0l7YwS15e90Y= =Xzgf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.B0gF7N:9J(86uz--