-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ok, tons of stuff in bugzilla that users are submitting could be
keyworded, but due to a 'policy' that I'm not completely clear on, can
not be because the ebuilds would overwrite Apple provided files. My
first suggestion was just use the ppc-darwin keyword for said ebuilds,
however usata brought up some valid points in bug #65763 that made this
seem less than ideal, and even though I was the one who recommended it,
I've since changed my mind(flip-flopper!).
At this point, I believe I'm the only dev that has a Darwin environment
to test in, and I'm quite sure none of our users are testing this stuff
in darwin. That being said, it wouldn't seem right for me to declare a
package as stable when I'm the only one in the world who has actually
used and tested said package in the Darwin userland. This also assumes
I myself could keep up with all these and actually have the
time/knowledge/motivation to use and test every package that our users
claim to be working.
I do believe there are users that actually WILL want to replace things
that apple shipped(i.e. a cvs client that isn't linked against the
kerberos framework...yuck), but on the other hand, many people will
want to use portage while leaving the system files untouched.
IIRC pvdabeel stated this should just be decided on a per package
basis, but IMHO a more general solution could speed up dev time.
I don't have a solution, but right now I'm leaning towards a USE flag
or possibly a FEATURE that would give the users a little more
flexibility in choosing how they want portage to live on their system.
Thoughts, opinions, criticisms, flames, ideas ?
Kito
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFBat3XJ0rMK/3OwgsRAuroAKCp+G8yQlJ/6byvGyjLvZvgT3twqgCfQOXX
cQV9ewVlCkNupSCfpDLijF8=
=KrSl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
Hash: SHA1
Ok, tons of stuff in bugzilla that users are submitting could be
keyworded, but due to a 'policy' that I'm not completely clear on, can
not be because the ebuilds would overwrite Apple provided files. My
first suggestion was just use the ppc-darwin keyword for said ebuilds,
however usata brought up some valid points in bug #65763 that made this
seem less than ideal, and even though I was the one who recommended it,
I've since changed my mind(flip-flopper!).
At this point, I believe I'm the only dev that has a Darwin environment
to test in, and I'm quite sure none of our users are testing this stuff
in darwin. That being said, it wouldn't seem right for me to declare a
package as stable when I'm the only one in the world who has actually
used and tested said package in the Darwin userland. This also assumes
I myself could keep up with all these and actually have the
time/knowledge/motivation to use and test every package that our users
claim to be working.
I do believe there are users that actually WILL want to replace things
that apple shipped(i.e. a cvs client that isn't linked against the
kerberos framework...yuck), but on the other hand, many people will
want to use portage while leaving the system files untouched.
IIRC pvdabeel stated this should just be decided on a per package
basis, but IMHO a more general solution could speed up dev time.
I don't have a solution, but right now I'm leaning towards a USE flag
or possibly a FEATURE that would give the users a little more
flexibility in choosing how they want portage to live on their system.
Thoughts, opinions, criticisms, flames, ideas ?
Kito
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFBat3XJ0rMK/3OwgsRAuroAKCp+G8yQlJ/6byvGyjLvZvgT3twqgCfQOXX
cQV9ewVlCkNupSCfpDLijF8=
=KrSl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list