From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1R7LzE-0003cd-SN for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:45:21 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C70A21C197; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:45:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A5721C0BE for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:44:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9541B4019 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:44:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -4.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.998 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=1.601, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PBZyZtcdnJlg for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:44:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A191B400C for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:44:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R7LyH-0000q7-DM for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:44:21 +0200 Received: from athedsl-377018.home.otenet.gr ([79.131.24.184]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:44:21 +0200 Received: from realnc by athedsl-377018.home.otenet.gr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:44:21 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Nikos Chantziaras Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: zlib breakage Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:43:58 +0300 Organization: Lucas Barks Message-ID: References: <201109240124.01627.vapier@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: athedsl-377018.home.otenet.gr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110920 Thunderbird/6.0 In-Reply-To: <201109240124.01627.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 2583a512fbec9183b211ee304b3302c5 On 09/24/2011 08:24 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday, September 23, 2011 17:44:50 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> I believe something needs to be done with the zlib-1.2.5.1-r1 and -r2 >> packages currently in the tree. The maintainer of zlib pushed those >> revisions with a patch that alters macro identifiers, making Gentoo's >> zlib incompatible with upstream. > > the defines in question are internal to zlib. packages relying on them are > broken, plain and simple. Then fix *them*, not zlib. >> As a result, a lot of packages stopped building. > > the *only* code that broke was code that was copied out of the zlib tree and > directly imported into other projects -- minizip. because the code was > designed to be compiled& linked as part of the zlib project, it uses internal > zlib defines. projects copying the code into their own tree and not cleaning > things up made a mistake. > > for many, this is a direct violation of Gentoo policy and they should be fixed > to use the minizip code that zlib exports. for the rest that modify the code > heavily, they should stop using the internal defines since their own code base > doesn't support pre-ansi C compilers. Then why did you "fix" zlib instead of those bad packages? >> Bug reports for broken packages come in and then are being >> modified to fit Gentoo's zlib. > > and those fixes can be sent to the respective upstreams See above. >> Breaking compatibility with upstream zlib also means that non-portage >> software, the ones I install with "./configure --prefix=$HOME/usr&& >> make install", also won't build. > > send the fix to the upstream maintainer Maybe 5% of users know how to code. The rest doesn't. >> It's a mess right now and it just doesn't look right. The bug that >> deals with it was locked from public view: > > because you keep presenting the same flawed ideas and ignore the responses. > in fact, all of the answers i posted above i already posted to the bug. You ignore the suggestions, which is the reason the same arguments pop up over and over again. The core issue is that ~arch is turning into a testing ground for upstreams rather than for Gentoo packaging. It's not nice to keep something in portage unmasked that is *known* to break packages, and *especially* if it's a beta release of an important base library (which zlib 1.2.5.1 certainly is). But you ignore that repeatedly. And this makes it very frustrating to communicate. ~arch is not for cleaning up upstream crap. ~arch is for testing packages that will later be marked stable.