Jason Stubbs wrote:
> 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).

It sounds right. There should be no valid instance of virtual/x11 that
is not within an || dep.

Thanks,
Donnie