From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LcJIi-0004Ak-J3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:55:48 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 41DC2E052F; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:55:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.172]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A81E052F for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:55:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so9196wff.10 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:55:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=i7t+RLQHSIEkVmHuAxlpqSf+U0MACHL5oBNfTjpwyKY=; b=r0JdiQIbAaAfjZgiaGZWuTuUnxLMWYdKPERZlQ4vQ62dZJQzrhooFN4c7oM4hYcaJE 7HXDHjL0m2AA7QjPPKk+1PwSbi2Wh4xzn+6Cu5tWHrdE+gMJ8cbeiutVeNLx0KjPZGFv ACVfe6w4vK7ZVFjLoTyyc3ck5Z5Ncd2xZ05SM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=j+anwqJkF3z7UlZzMSnEsk4KU4+h2r1qdmpRJClITbdmR+Hdf8ycj0ngAf00j4/jy4 vUV+3bcCYsPAmZYI+c8YYPEAK/8tjRoYmO4wUQKKFO5ESF0Lt26RPSnEibfHMcNkWaFl HblpiqNl6snYM1HmQJmWOhfJg8o3+UsXLhhW0= Received: by 10.142.199.16 with SMTP id w16mr54243wff.4.1235566545600; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:55:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.gmail.com (c-98-210-196-21.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.210.196.21]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm15368506wfd.26.2009.02.25.04.55.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:55:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp.gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:56:21 -0800 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:56:21 -0800 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for February 26 Message-ID: <20090225125621.GE3506@hrair> References: <20090223072648.GK12339@hermes> <20090224174725.GC3506@hrair> <1235565758.4155.1.camel@dhcp-16.lan.rep.sj> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ryJZkp9/svQ58syV" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1235565758.4155.1.camel@dhcp-16.lan.rep.sj> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Archives-Salt: 07856de6-4977-48e2-941d-dc4536653458 X-Archives-Hash: e85884582be484ed893b9ab7d8454ef6 --ryJZkp9/svQ58syV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 01:42:38PM +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > Le mardi 24 f=C3=A9vrier 2009 =C3=A0 09:47 -0800, Brian Harring a =C3=A9c= rit : > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:26:48PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4t= h=20 > > > Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council = @=20 > > > irc.freenode.net) ! > >=20 > > Informal request, but it would be useful to get an idea of the=20 > > councils views on portage overlay compatibility issues. > >=20 > > Specifically, when it comes to gentoo repositories, there is one, and= =20 > > only one definition of what that is- pms's repo spec. The problem=20 > > here is that the only repository truly conformant to that spec is=20 > > gentoo-x86, for the rest of the repositories (overlays realistically)= =20 > > whatever portage supports seems to be the eventual standard they grow= =20 > > towards. > >=20 > > Problem with this is that there is *zero* way to spot these non-pms=20 > > repositories as it stands. Simplest example, under portage overlays=20 > > can unmask pkgs globally (gnome overlay reverting masks in=20 > > gentoo-x86), >=20 > I reply here as part of the gnome herd and partly responsible for the > mask reverting in the overlay. I didn't know something used in > gentoo-x86 couldn't be used in an overlay. Suspect I wasn't clear; you *can* use things from the parent (although=20 that whole relationship is outside of PMS); the problem here is that=20 y'all are reverting something in the *master*. Literally, bug-buddy was masked in gentoo-x86; enabling your overlay=20 reverts that masking in *gentoo-x86*. Only reason this even works is=20 due to portage internals being limited (everything is stacked=20 together, no true standalones possible). > Could you point me to the PMS section that treat this ? Flip through the package.mask section (snagging from profiles.tex=20 directly)- """ Note that the \t{-spec} syntax can be used to remove a mask in a=20 parent profile, but not necessarily a global mask (from=20 \t{profiles/package.mask}, section~\ref{profiles-package.mask}). \note Portage currently treats \t{profiles/package.mask} as being on=20 the leftmost branch of the inherit tree when it comes to \t{-lines}.=20 This behaviour may not be relied upon. """ Note the 'parent profile'. Why they're claiming repo level masking=20 can't be reversed for that repo, not sure (reasonably sure several=20 profiles rely on it). Either way, your overlay is trying to revert=20 entries it doesn't have in that stack. Only reason it flies for portage is because it collapses it all into=20 one stack; for managers designed to support multiple standalone repos=20 that assumption no longer applies, thus that behaviour (outside of=20 PMS) breaks. ~harring --ryJZkp9/svQ58syV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmlP/UACgkQsiLx3HvNzgfpuACgwOA3CfQ3TDqQzWRPhkSdiK3i YgMAoLi1QhQ96HiGVzX8IKboWgQJAp9a =5L8y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ryJZkp9/svQ58syV--