On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:43, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 09/24/2011 08:24 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> the defines in question are internal to zlib. packages relying on them >> are broken, plain and simple. > > Then fix *them*, not zlib.
they are being fixed already > Then why did you "fix" zlib instead of those bad packages? i have no idea what you're talking about. they're both getting fixed. >>> 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. then file a bug report. it isn't rocket science. >>> 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. i read your position, evaluated it, and found it to be inferior. you cannot accept that, thus you continue to waste time. > The core issue is that ~arch is turning into a testing > ground for upstreams rather than for Gentoo packaging. if you want to restart the long thread about what ~arch is actually for, then go for it. it has come up from time to time and developers are generally fine with the current model. > keep something in portage unmasked that is *known* to break packages ~arch is known to have bugs. if you don't want bugs, don't use ~arch. we do not operate on a "if you broke anything at all, it must get reverted" development style. you simply need to accept the reality. further, in order to get p.masked, it has to be a fairly wide breakage. in this case, we've got a whopping ~15 bugs. half of which are already fixed. > *especially* if it's a beta release of an important base library (which zlib > 1.2.5.1 certainly is). there hasn't been a single bug filed about 1.2.5 vs 1.2.5.1. stop making up issues that don't exist. > But you ignore that repeatedly. back up your position with actual data and perhaps someone will listen. until you have something new to say, there isn't anything left for me to cover. -mike
