From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MwsLa-00051K-Gd for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 06:56:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DBDCDE076B; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 06:56:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37A7E076B for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 06:56:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from angelstorm (cpe-66-75-3-21.san.res.rr.com [66.75.3.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1460A67BF0 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 06:56:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:55:51 -0700 From: Joshua Saddler To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: package.use.stable.mask Message-ID: <20091010235551.129c34ea@angelstorm> In-Reply-To: <200910102204.51253.scarabeus@gentoo.org> References: <200910102204.51253.scarabeus@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.2 (GTK+ 2.16.6; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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; boundary="Sig_/HQfFrXjHcfP=KZH13Tz6cjf"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 109c87c8-b9c9-4a8a-b415-b4ccf4f3cd45 X-Archives-Hash: faeca1405e0d681440756b81e6a726f3 --Sig_/HQfFrXjHcfP=KZH13Tz6cjf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:04:50 +0200 Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Chv=C3=A1tal wrote: > Hi, > lately I spoted that quite few packages have optional parts bit unstable = (KDE=20 > parts, boinc [i wont stable it until the cuda is, i wont do the work > explained bellow :)], kipi,...). > I really don't like the shebang about doing -r1 and -r50 so we keep 2=20 > revisions where one is stableable and second is not. > So how about having this nice file (topic), it quite self-explainable by = the=20 > name. > Also syntax would be same as for package.use.mask and same goes for place= ment=20 Don't take this too harshly, but doing it this way seems entirely bass-ackw= ards to me. Why not just do one of the following: 1. Stabilize the dependencies. Make 'em all the same level. I went through = this the other from the other side when trying to get RedNotebook stabilize= d: I couldn't do so until pyyaml, one of its dependencies, had libyaml stab= ilized, since libyaml is an optional USE dependency for pyyaml. By forcing all three packages to be stable, *we prevented breakage to users= ' systems from the beginning.* No need to mess with complicated stable/unst= able dependency relationships. 2. Don't mark the origin package stable in the first place! If its dependen= cies aren't stable, then you cannot in good conscience declare that the ori= ginal package should be stable, and then "let the dependencies sort themsel= ves out" . . . weeks or months down the line. Just let it *and* its deps re= main in ~arch. What's so wrong with that? * * * Again, I really think it's bad QA and bad practice to mismatch stable packa= ges with unstable dependencies. Please tell us why 1. and 2. don't work for= you. --Sig_/HQfFrXjHcfP=KZH13Tz6cjf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkrRgXoACgkQxPWMzpKk6kMqqwCfQjSKQpmvrRfIG+3yYmIOMaBS Y6kAoLawtnn71rbXBCs0Onu9kXP+0tdl =TL1V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/HQfFrXjHcfP=KZH13Tz6cjf--