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 1JbCxY-0005yC-SO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:52:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 183C8E050B; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83C1E050B for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:52:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (91.181.219.87.dynamic.jazztel.es [87.219.181.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D63651E2 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:52:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <47DE4D86.4030604@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:52:54 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?UmHDumwgUG9yY2Vs?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080213) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] net-libs/xulrunner-1.9 slotting or not? References: <47DBF558.7030705@gentoo.org> <47DCBE68.5000109@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: ab725179-10b4-46a7-a989-31a92160c093 X-Archives-Hash: 2ff5ae67f6fd6e85602fb9f75e1527cf Duncan wrote: > Luca Barbato posted 47DCBE68.5000109@gentoo.org, > excerpted below, on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:30:00 +0100: >=20 >> Ra=C3=BAl Porcel wrote: >>> Xulrunner-1.9 is a big change, and the apps using it won't work until >>> they are fixed. So this needs to be decided, i've been working on >>> slotting xulrunner, and i'm ready to put it in the tree. However i'd >>> like to see what developers(since they will be the ones who will have >>> to deal with this) and users prefer. Even if an app is compatible wit= h >>> xulrunner-1.9, it will have to be patched if we slot xulrunner. Since >>> the pkgconfig files for xulrunner-1.9 are renamed to avoid collisions >>> with current xulrunner-1.8. >>> The other approach would be not slotting it, p.mask xulrunner-1.9 and >>> wait until all the packages work against it and then unmask. >> Given the number of applications I'd rather have them fixed with the >> patches pushed to respective upstreams if we got there first. >=20 > Thanks for the wisdom of asking about this, Raul. Given the way you=20 > worded things, it looks like the consensus is heading a way other than=20 > you might have expected. >=20 > Unslotted xulrunner seems to be the consensus, so we aren't committing = to=20 > "forever" maintain patches ourselves -- on a package-base that may well= =20 > expand over time. >=20 > Some questions. What's the possibility of getting upstream to handle t= he=20 > renaming, thereby making slotting much easier while eliminating the=20 > "eternal" patch commitment? Has the issue even been brought up with=20 > mozilla-upstream? I know they aren't always the most receptive to=20 > community suggestions, but it's worth asking, anyway. >=20 > How many packages are we talking about? Regardless of how we go, fixin= g=20 > ten is going to be far easier than a hundred, or five hundred. >=20 Upstream won't do that...so i guess this means xulrunner gets unslotted := ) --=20 gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list