On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:38:51 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Monday 17 September 2012 08:22:50 Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 22:06:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Sunday 16 September 2012 11:01:00 Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > also, you are missing some bug # for the 'broken deps' part. > > > > packages that have gained broken deps when the profile was > > > > marked 'dev', or that you committed with your profile.desc > > > > locally modified, do not count and are your fault actually... > > > > > > wrong. if i'm version bumping a package and i see broken > > > amd64-fbsd deps, that is not my problem. sounds like i'll simply > > > de-keyword it in the future and let someone else pick up the > > > pieces. > > > > why do you want to treat amd64-fbsd different than other arches ? > > atm, i see amd64-fbsd as a toy arch that is impacting more negatively > than it is positively. negatively ? [...] > > just to make the work of those that want to maintain that arch a > > pain ? > > this is why i've kept some arches which are not large in dev profiles > -- so that when a new dep does come up, other devs aren't blocked. > i've also communicated in the past that they should feel free to drop > the keyword & file a bug later so that they aren't hung up on work > they're focusing on. your choice, the same choice was made for x86-fbsd; however, after years, i dont think that choice was wise and dont want to repeat the mistakes. > > > > do a repoman on the tree. there are multiple packages coming back > > > right now with broken amd64-fbsd deps. > > > > if people do not file bugs and think it's fine to commit packages > > with broken deps, or silently dekeyword just because they can like > > you suggested in the first paragraph, this will not change anytime > > soon. > > > > and no thanks, i wont be doing repoman checks on the tree, i had > > been doing this for x86-fbsd, spending hours fixing the mess i > > could, and had to re-do it every couple of months because every > > other dev was committing packages with broken deps. > > except amd64-fbsd is no longer just a dev profile like x86-fbsd which > means those broken deps are messing people up. people who had > nothing to do with the breakage in the first place. you are missing the point here: amd64-fbsd has *never* been a dev profile. nobody should *ever* have committed something with broken deps. except because of the commit that started that thread.
