Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

[Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>]

On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "broken" in the first paragraph nor 
> > how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if 
> > a repoman check will hasten package porting while smoothing the users' 
> > ride, I'm personally all for it.
> 
> By "broken" I mean unported. In other words, directly depending on
> either virtual/x11 or x11-base/xorg-x11. The check will help discover
> unmaintained packages by not allowing people to do flyby fixes without
> also fixing this.
> 
> What can I do to speed up the process of getting this into a 2.1
> release? Keep in mind my python is beyond bad.

Perhaps not so easy. What specific states need to be checked for to regard a 
package as broken? Depending on "x11-base/xorg-x11" is one. Depending on 
"virtual/x11" seems to be valid looking at the porting guide though. Would 
considering a package broken if it contains "virtual/x11" where the token 
immediately preceding the surrounding brackets is not "||" be correct?

DEPEND="x11-base/xorg-x11"              # wrong
DEPEND="virtual/x11"                    # wrong
DEPEND="|| ( x11? ( virtual/x11 ) )"    # wrong
DEPEND="|| ( misc/atoms virtual/x11 )"  # right

There's a small possibility that broken packages will be missed by this, but 
is there any chance that valid packages will be incorrectly flagged? If this 
gets a go-ahead, it'll be easy enough to get in for the next release (which 
is likely this coming Saturday).

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list