From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C073138247 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:16:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A69CE0B07; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:16:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 373BBE0ACC for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:16:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.160] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.181.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17A1A33F312 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:16:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <528397D1.5010801@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:16:33 -0500 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 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: Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask References: <20131113123953.623ac06d@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52837DB7.90805@gentoo.org> <528392DD.4060208@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <528392DD.4060208@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: dfa369db-5d76-4353-b7bf-c66bc4c0d386 X-Archives-Hash: 426ebb8cec83968d298d3a3644ad3a00 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 13/11/13 09:55 AM, Thomas Kahle wrote: > On 11/13/2013 03:30 PM, Duncan wrote: >> Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:37:51 -0500 as >> excerpted: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Thomas Kahle >>> wrote: >>>> On 11/13/2013 12:39 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:28:02 +0000 (UTC) Martin Vaeth >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello. >>>>>> >>>>>> The new "features" use.stable.mask and >>>>>> package.use.stable.mask have turned maintaining systems >>>>>> with mixed ARCH and ~ARCH keywords into a nightmare: >>>>> >>>>> They are considered unsupported by many; so, going down >>>>> that path you need to be acquainted with Portage enough to >>>>> keep a consistent system. >>>> >>>> This argument has come up several times, but is it valid? >>> >>> Honestly, opinions vary on this one and I don't think it is a >>> productive path to go down. I also feel that being able to mix >>> keywords is a big benefit of using Gentoo. I'd rather focus on >>> practical ways to make this easier rather than whether it is >>> desirable. >>> >>> That said, there are always going to be situations where mixing >>> keywords isn't practical. You're not going to run stable >>> chromium against ~arch v8, or mixed keywords between kdelibs >>> and kwin, etc. >> >> FWIW, I believe at least part of the confusion here is based on >> differing definitions of "supported". > > I agree. Generally however, we should think Gentoo (or the open > source ecosystem) more bazaar, less cathedral. Libraries have > interfaces, and they are supposed to be mixed and matched according > to the interface definitions. We (Gentoo) should not think of > "Gentoo stable" as a fixed product like "iOS-7". It has come a > long way, but philosophically I still think of Gentoo as a kind of > automated Linux-from-scratch (where you also mix and match whatever > you find on the Internets). > > In the end it boils down to what we mean by "supported". For me > "supported" does not mean "tested". As you point out, testing > every combination forbids itself. Supported for me means that the > argument "you mixed stable and unstable" is not per se valid. > There's a huge difference between > > You mixed unstable firefox with stable gcc > > and > > You mixed unstable X server with stable protocols. > > For me mixing the trees is supported in the sense that I would > apply rational judgement to bugs. If they are of the second type, > it can be said in a polite way that we as Gentoo can't do anything > about this combination not working. The term "supported" is a rather overloaded term which tends to mean different things in gentoo depending on the context that it is used (and who's using it), for sure. It's also not analogous to "working" or "expected to work", at all, imo. I wonder if it might be a good idea to have a discussion and reach consensus on what the Gentoo (Developer) definition of "Supported" should actually be, and document this somewhere so that ambiguity can be officially removed. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlKDl9EACgkQ2ugaI38ACPABTgEApL3YpwDO1aN6SrJ08byJi7L4 q5I1zYPImbooAUkm3OAA/2gGn2m1ulw6UzoQNLEtVkEzXr83iwMUvHX4jaGhUUEo =b+5F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----