On 21 April 2013 22:59, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:53:28 +0800
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On 19 April 2013 21:30, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
> > > "Ben de Groot (yngwin)" <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Index: package.mask
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask,v
> > > > retrieving revision 1.14667
> > > > retrieving revision 1.14668
> > > > diff -u -r1.14667 -r1.14668
> > > > --- package.mask      19 Apr 2013 06:20:50 -0000      1.14667
> > > > +++ package.mask      19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0000      1.14668
> > > [...]
> > > > @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@
> > > >  # Non-maintainer ebuild with experimental multilib features
> > > >  # masked for further testing
> > > >  =media-libs/freetype-2.4.11-r2
> > > > +=media-libs/fontconfig-2.10.2-r1
> > > >
> > >
> > > Is there any real reason behind this mask I may have missed ?
> >
> >
> > This ebuild, with multilib features, was committed without my consent,
> > while I am the de facto maintainer of freetype and fontconfig (other
> > devs in fonts herd are inactive). I don't want to deal with bug
> > reports because of this.
>
> Fair enough, but there is a lack of coordination there (who started the
> mess is irrelevant), leaving as only choices: unmask ft/fc or mask a
> good part of the multilib x11 stuff. The current situation is broken.
>

I agree it is broken. I'm trying to do my part for the packages I maintain.
In my opinion all the recent multilib stuff should be masked, but I don't
maintain those other (x11) packages. So you may want to handle it in
a different way.


> I suppose you talked with Michal about this and couldn't reach an
> agreement, like him joining the fonts herd, or at least the mail alias
> to monitor ft/fc bugs.
>
> If you want I can join the fonts herd also, I already have a foot in
> there for some small packages used within texlive anyway.
>

We could certainly use a hand in fonts herd. Most members have
left or are on extended non-active status. It's just lu_zero (and I am
not sure how active he is wrt fonts packages, but it certainly doesn't
cover freetype and fontconfig) and me.

> And I'd rather see this developed in an overlay instead, as I have
> > said before. We also need more consensus on this multilib approach
> > before I am happy to support this.
>
> I believe we reached consensus last time. Also, I believe we are at the
> step "it is mature enough to give it a wide ~arch testing"; otherwise
> we may just repeat multilib-portage history and have it in an overlay
> for several years to never give it wide adoption in the end.
>

Maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen anything like that.
Can you point me to those discussions?

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin