From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25812 invoked by uid 1002); 1 Jun 2003 17:56:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 18575 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2003 17:56:58 -0000 Message-ID: <3EDA3E74.5030801@snerk.org> Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 13:57:08 -0400 From: Stewart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild behaviour? X-Archives-Salt: 0bcd7e39-bf9a-4fbe-9dee-b1aa9e7407e4 X-Archives-Hash: 0a1b79fa45e40e4db9560eac77115244 Hello, all; I was wondering if there exists any formal policy on the addition/removal (emphasis on the latter) of ebuilds? Two examples that come immediately to mind in recent past are LICQ and Mozilla. In the case of LICQ, a 1.2.6 ebuild was committed which did not work (for whatever reason a copy of the 1.2.4-r2 ebuild failed to install the plugins correctly, rendering the GUI unusable), and at the same time - before any testing was done to 1.2.6 - the (stable, tested) 1.2.4-r2 ebuild, and all prior to it, were removed from the tree. In the case of Mozilla, its ebuilds have remained behind the releases (alpha/beta/release candidate) for some time, remaining fixed at 1.3. In a previous rsync I noticed a 1.4b ebuild, but in a subsequent rsync that ebuild was removed from the tree. I was anxious to hack away at it and see if it would work and possibly be portable for the 1.4rc1 version. So what is the policy on removing stable, tested ebuilds, and even for removing newer ebuilds which haven't had a chance to be tested? In the case of LICQ, shouldn't that be handled by ~arch? In the case of Mozilla, package.mask until the ebuild installed, and ~arch afterwards for testing? Portage is technologically fantastic, but I'm afraid that if the means aren't used properly, we may find ourselves with a frustrated user (and developer) base. :/ Thoughts? Opinions? -- http://www.snerk.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list