From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2EFus6c006959 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:56:55 GMT Received: from bmb244.med.uth.tmc.edu ([129.106.207.244] helo=localhost) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1DArw5-0002Uf-Hx for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:56:53 +0000 Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:56:53 -0600 From: Grant Goodyear To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] apache and ~arch Message-ID: <20050314155653.GD571@bmb244.uth.tmc.edu> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <20050313172441.GA21923@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <4235581A.7010700@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: , , List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0F1p//8PRICkK4MW" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4235581A.7010700@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: e4171439-1cb9-4616-b3e1-01dee4acdd39 X-Archives-Hash: b6115228d4dbc82eb1552ab539cfc4ee --0F1p//8PRICkK4MW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Michael Stewart wrote: [Mon Mar 14 2005, 03:23:38AM CST] > I believe the specific situation you are referring to is mod_php. We did > patch it and have it hard masked, and wanted the php herd's stamp of > approval before we unmasked it. All of us that are working on this are > rather new developers (I myself have only been a dev since December), > and didn't want to break someone else's package, especially one as > complex as PHP. So we left it hard-masked while unmasking ours, and > referenced users to the already open bug about mod_php and also pointed > users at the hard-masked revision of mod_php that worked for us. I agree > it could have been handled better, but what we did seemed like enough at > the time. The packages are in ~arch, and we never intended them to go to > stable without all other expected packages there as well. Again, I certainly understand that one makes mistakes. My e-mail was not intended to castigate the new apache devs, but instead to point out an error, explain my rationale, and subtly suggest that you not do something similar in the future. Reading your response, and especially hollow's blog posting, however, it seems that I also should have more firmly pointed out a misconception: ~arch in Gentoo is supposed to be as fully functional as the Gentoo devs can make it. Saying that "we never intended them to go to stable without all other expected packages there as well" means that point was missed; for situations where you want to release before all packages are ready we have package.mask. The rationale is fairly simple: ~arch is for testing ebuilds, essentially for finding non-trivial errors (especially errors in interactions between packages), and that's awfully hard to do if not all packages are available. > Some have suggested that we move backwards into hard-mask. I disagree=20 > with this. When we moved from hard-mask to ~arch, we did so to get a=20 > wider testing audience. We have run into a few glitches here and there,= =20 > but that is the point of ~arch, to work all the glitches out before=20 > moving to stable. The major breakage that most users came across was the= =20 > unexpected non-working of mod_php. And now mod_php revision that works=20 > with the new apache revision is no longer in hard-mask. Moving back to=20 > hard-mask at this point in time would only cause more headaches then=20 > pushing forward to get everything working together. Arguments for either= =20 > side are welcome however. Now that the shiny new mod_php ebuild is available, I tend to agree that masking the new stuff would be a mistake. Indeed, masking any package that has already been released is almost always a disaster if the new release was incompatible with the old release. That's precisely why one has to be so careful not to unmask packages before they're ready. Finally, let me say that I'm quite grateful that you folks are maintaining apache. It's an important package, and not a simple one, and I appreciate all of the work that went into the new config. You folks did good work, and along the way made a moderately big mistake. It happens. Just fix it (it looks like it mostly is, now), please don't do it again, and we'll all move on. -g2boojum- --=20 Grant Goodyear=09 Gentoo Developer g2boojum@gentoo.org http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 --0F1p//8PRICkK4MW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCNbRFptxxUuD2W3YRAtYGAJ9xNZXj4jYHtdtyhI8+CIIIzOXQnwCfa1E1 60ge1HTt/07+dmV6R/oUzL0= =3SA2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0F1p//8PRICkK4MW-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list