It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64 because
it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it would be
beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for arches that
don't affect them at all.


It seems better if the packages can be unmasked for x86 and amd64 and
only kept hard-masked for ppc/ppc64 while they wait for keywords.
Otherwise, all arches will feel the effect of the slowest one without
there being a need for this.

W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:
> It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64 because
> it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it would be
> beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for arches that
> don't affect them at all.
>
> It seems better if the packages can be unmasked for x86 and amd64 and
> only kept hard-masked for ppc/ppc64 while they wait for keywords.
> Otherwise, all arches will feel the effect of the slowest one without
> there being a need for this.
>
>
I don't know what gave you the idea that ppc* has anything to do with
masking/unmasking of KDE-4.6. Just 2 facts:
1) you can unmask anything by using /etc/portage/package.unmask,
therefore nothing can ever hold *you* back
2) arches already have independent package.mask files, see
${PORTDIR}/profiles/arch/powerpc/package.mask for an example.

Best regards,
Kacper Kowalik

On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:

W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:

It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64 because
it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it would be
beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for arches that
don't affect them at all.
[...]


I don't know what gave you the idea that ppc* has anything to do with
masking/unmasking of KDE-4.6. Just 2 facts:
1) you can unmask anything by using /etc/portage/package.unmask,
therefore nothing can ever hold *you* back


This is about all users in general. Not just me :-) If putting stuff
in /etc/portage/package.unmask should be considered the recommended
solution for this, then we wouldn't need a masking system in the first
place. When something is hard-masked, it tells the user "we're not
considering it safe or working yet."




2) arches already have independent package.mask files, see
${PORTDIR}/profiles/arch/powerpc/package.mask for an example.


It seems they aren't used though. I mainly posted this because of the
discussion on this page:


http://blog.tampakrap.gr/kde-sc-4-6-0-in-gentoo

It seems devs have can't modify arch/powerpc/package.mask on their own?
If not, this looks like a problem, delaying packages for all arches.

Hi,

Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de>:
> On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> > W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:
> >> It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64
> >> because it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it
> >> would be beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for
> >> arches that don't affect them at all.
> >> [...]
> >
> > I don't know what gave you the idea that ppc* has anything to do
> > with masking/unmasking of KDE-4.6. Just 2 facts:
> > 1) you can unmask anything by using /etc/portage/package.unmask,
> > therefore nothing can ever hold *you* back
>
> This is about all users in general. Not just me :-) If putting
> stuff in /etc/portage/package.unmask should be considered the
> recommended solution for this, then we wouldn't need a masking system
> in the first place. When something is hard-masked, it tells the user
> "we're not considering it safe or working yet."
>
>
> > 2) arches already have independent package.mask files, see
> > ${PORTDIR}/profiles/arch/powerpc/package.mask for an example.
>
> It seems they aren't used though. I mainly posted this because of
> the discussion on this page:
>
> http://blog.tampakrap.gr/kde-sc-4-6-0-in-gentoo
>
> It seems devs have can't modify arch/powerpc/package.mask on their
> own? If not, this looks like a problem, delaying packages for all
> arches.

Don't be so impatient...Debian users wait two years for a new major
version of KDE. This is also a general hard mask for wider testing, it
usually gets moved further down the line to individual profiles.

V-Li

--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

On 02/02/2011 11:01 PM, Christian Faulhammer wrote:

Hi,

Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@arcor.de>:

On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:

W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:

It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64
because it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it
would be beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for
arches that don't affect them at all.
[...]


Don't be so impatient...Debian users wait two years for a new major
version of KDE.


I know. Though Debian is not a rolling-release distro, like Gentoo is.
Don't get me wrong though; it's not that I'm impatient. I already
unmasked it here. I brought this up simply because it seemed like a
needless inefficiency that the popular arches get stalled by the less
popular ones. That's all really, so hopefully no one will read more
into it than there is.

On Wednesday 02 February 2011 23:34:07 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 02/02/2011 11:01 PM, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@arcor.de>:
> >> On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> >>> W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:
> >>>> It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64
> >>>> because it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it
> >>>> would be beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for
> >>>> arches that don't affect them at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >
> > Don't be so impatient...Debian users wait two years for a new major
> >
> > version of KDE.
>
> I know. Though Debian is not a rolling-release distro, like Gentoo is.
> Don't get me wrong though; it's not that I'm impatient. I already
> unmasked it here. I brought this up simply because it seemed like a
> needless inefficiency that the popular arches get stalled by the less
> popular ones. That's all really, so hopefully no one will read more
> into it than there is.

For the record, Kacper told me today that every developer is allowed to touch
ppc/ppc64 profiles. Archies that don't want others to touch their profiles
should mention it in the devmanual. I was not aware of that, I thought that
!arch member is not allowed to touch arch-specific profiles. Anyway, KDE 4.6
will be unmasked tomorrow.
--
Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap)
Gentoo KDE/Qt, Planet, Overlays

On 02/02/2011 11:42 PM, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:

>
> For the record, Kacper told me today that every developer is allowed to touch
> ppc/ppc64 profiles. Archies that don't want others to touch their profiles
> should mention it in the devmanual. I was not aware of that, I thought that
> !arch member is not allowed to touch arch-specific profiles. Anyway, KDE 4.6
> will be unmasked tomorrow.
>

The general rule I have been using is that if the profile change only
has an effect on the package you maintain then it's ok to do it
yourself. This is probably something that should be nailed down
somewhere. I think I will propose it for the next council meeting.

Regards,
Petteri