On 21 April 2013 22:59, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:53:28 +0800 > Ben de Groot <yng...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On 19 April 2013 21:30, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 +0000 (UTC) > > > "Ben de Groot (yngwin)" <yng...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Index: package.mask > > > > =================================================================== > > > > RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask,v > > > > retrieving revision 1.14667 > > > > retrieving revision 1.14668 > > > > diff -u -r1.14667 -r1.14668 > > > > --- package.mask 19 Apr 2013 06:20:50 -0000 1.14667 > > > > +++ package.mask 19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0000 1.14668 > > > [...] > > > > @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@ > > > > # Non-maintainer ebuild with experimental multilib features > > > > # masked for further testing > > > > =media-libs/freetype-2.4.11-r2 > > > > +=media-libs/fontconfig-2.10.2-r1 > > > > > > > > > > Is there any real reason behind this mask I may have missed ? > > > > > > This ebuild, with multilib features, was committed without my consent, > > while I am the de facto maintainer of freetype and fontconfig (other > > devs in fonts herd are inactive). I don't want to deal with bug > > reports because of this. > > Fair enough, but there is a lack of coordination there (who started the > mess is irrelevant), leaving as only choices: unmask ft/fc or mask a > good part of the multilib x11 stuff. The current situation is broken. >
I agree it is broken. I'm trying to do my part for the packages I maintain. In my opinion all the recent multilib stuff should be masked, but I don't maintain those other (x11) packages. So you may want to handle it in a different way. > I suppose you talked with Michal about this and couldn't reach an > agreement, like him joining the fonts herd, or at least the mail alias > to monitor ft/fc bugs. > > If you want I can join the fonts herd also, I already have a foot in > there for some small packages used within texlive anyway. > We could certainly use a hand in fonts herd. Most members have left or are on extended non-active status. It's just lu_zero (and I am not sure how active he is wrt fonts packages, but it certainly doesn't cover freetype and fontconfig) and me. > And I'd rather see this developed in an overlay instead, as I have > > said before. We also need more consensus on this multilib approach > > before I am happy to support this. > > I believe we reached consensus last time. Also, I believe we are at the > step "it is mature enough to give it a wide ~arch testing"; otherwise > we may just repeat multilib-portage history and have it in an overlay > for several years to never give it wide adoption in the end. > Maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen anything like that. Can you point me to those discussions? -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
