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 j2MDqaef032070 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:52:37 GMT Received: from callisto.cs.kun.nl ([131.174.33.75]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DDjoB-0004BS-GK for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:52:35 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by callisto.cs.kun.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E862E8007 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:50:36 +0100 (CET) From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] apache and ~arch Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:50:26 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <20050313172441.GA21923@dst.grantgoodyear.org> In-Reply-To: <20050313172441.GA21923@dst.grantgoodyear.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; boundary="nextPart2470147.vf0BJXm4mZ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200503221450.34579.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: b38670d2-9240-4815-8b06-746c00d8db87 X-Archives-Hash: 1cdf1e5ee9236c604b066ea78e88098b --nextPart2470147.vf0BJXm4mZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 13 March 2005 18:24, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Yes, I was one of the many people who emerged the new apache ebuild > without paying sufficient attention to the mailing list post announcing > the dramatic changes. *Shrug* It took me a day or so to get things > fixed, but that was my own fault, and I have no complaints about the > new config. > So, what should one do about a package that, in and of itself, is fully > functional, but related packages have not yet been updated and package > maintainers cannot be urged to move faster to fix the packages? Well, > nagging on bugs is usually the first step, followed by nagging on -dev > so that people know that there is a problem. If that doesn't work, the > traditional method is to patch the related ebuilds oneself, add the > patched ebuilds to package.mask in a nice big block along w/ the > principal package, and start asking people to test. That way, once it > appears that the bugs are reasonably worked out the whole block can be > unmasked at once, minimizing pain for our users who "can't read". > Moreover, once this step is done it is perfectly reasonable to post a > bug and a message to -dev saying "New foo system seems to be working, > and we plan to unmask all at once in 30 days unless any maintainers of > these packages [provide list] explicitly tells us not to do so." > It's actually worse. I had a new testing version of subversion in package=20 mask, but it did not get unmasked with apache. Neither did I get notified=20 (except by the general announcement) that the new apache stuff would be=20 unmasked. I caught it in a couple of hours, but am wary of what happens=20 when the new apache is marked stable as that would introduce similar=20 problems. Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --nextPart2470147.vf0BJXm4mZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCQCKqbKx5DBjWFdsRAq/+AJ9GZVPF/Yc6g2y24Dl2Lq0F9slaYgCdG3i7 wdEpqCXfebxPr4y3YKjwrPI= =6zbt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2470147.vf0BJXm4mZ-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list