staging patches may not work and fail the ebuild.
by that logic we should not have -9999 ebuilds at all because they "may fail".
By that logic we should not have ebuilds at all because they "may fail". The staging patches dont work on the git. USE flags should be removed.
9999s are not ever guaranteed to build, as Hello71 said.
(In reply to NP-Hardass from comment #3) > 9999s are not ever guaranteed to build, as Hello71 said. Yes, but wine-staging is also not intended to apply against wine master.
Do not change the status of this bug again. Doing so will result in me having you temporarily banned from bugzilla. 9999s are not guaranteed to build or have patches apply to them. Staging provides a mechanism to check what the last known commit that it can apply apply against. This cannot be done automatically as this would prevent this ebuild from being live. That would be pseudo snapshot, and after having discussed with QA, that is not possible. However, the ebuild outputs via einfo that commit hash along with the precise command that a user may use to select the last known commit that staging is known to apply upon. So, not guaranteed to build, and we provide a mechanism to allow the user to build against an older wine commit if they are too impatient to wait for staging to rebase against wine master. End of story.
(In reply to Austin English from comment #4) > (In reply to NP-Hardass from comment #3) > > 9999s are not ever guaranteed to build, as Hello71 said. > > Yes, but wine-staging is also not intended to apply against wine master. It is, but I'd only guaranteed to apply against the output of the last known good commit. And as already discussed, we can automatically choose that. The user either overrides locally with an env var or waits for a rebase. Same with any other static patch. Either overrides the commit locally with an env var or wait for upstream/downstream to rebase the patch
(In reply to NP-Hardass from comment #6) > (In reply to Austin English from comment #4) > > (In reply to NP-Hardass from comment #3) > > > 9999s are not ever guaranteed to build, as Hello71 said. > > > > Yes, but wine-staging is also not intended to apply against wine master. > > It is, but I'd only guaranteed to apply against the output of the last known > good commit. And as already discussed, we can automatically choose that. The > user either overrides locally with an env var or waits for a rebase. Same > with any other static patch. Either overrides the commit locally with an env > var or wait for upstream/downstream to rebase the patch Bah, phone autocorrect. It's only guaranteed We can't automatically
(In reply to NP-Hardass from comment #6) > (In reply to Austin English from comment #4) > > (In reply to NP-Hardass from comment #3) > > > 9999s are not ever guaranteed to build, as Hello71 said. > > > > Yes, but wine-staging is also not intended to apply against wine master. > > It is, but I'd only guaranteed to apply against the output of the last known > good commit. And as already discussed, we can automatically choose that. The > user either overrides locally with an env var or waits for a rebase. Same > with any other static patch. Either overrides the commit locally with an env > var or wait for upstream/downstream to rebase the patch So it is but actually in fact it isnt? If someone wants the patches they should just use the release branches. (In reply to NP-Hardass from comment #5) > Do not change the status of this bug again. Doing so will result in me having you > temporarily banned from bugzilla. "hurdur you are disagreeing with me so i mute you."No wonder people leave "gentoo". This is my bug report. Is there a way to block you of my bug report?
(In reply to C.J. Wijtmans from comment #8) > (In reply to NP-Hardass from comment #6) > > (In reply to Austin English from comment #4) > > > (In reply to NP-Hardass from comment #3) > > > > 9999s are not ever guaranteed to build, as Hello71 said. > > > > > > Yes, but wine-staging is also not intended to apply against wine master. > > > > It is, but I'd only guaranteed to apply against the output of the last known > > good commit. And as already discussed, we can automatically choose that. The > > user either overrides locally with an env var or waits for a rebase. Same > > with any other static patch. Either overrides the commit locally with an env > > var or wait for upstream/downstream to rebase the patch > > So it is but actually in fact it isnt? If someone wants the patches they > should just use the release branches. > > (In reply to NP-Hardass from comment #5) > > Do not change the status of this bug again. Doing so will result in me having you > temporarily banned from bugzilla. > "hurdur you are disagreeing with me so i mute you."No wonder people leave > "gentoo". > > This is my bug report. Is there a way to block you of my bug report? I am the WINE maintainer. I am the WINE project lead. It is my bug report to handle. I gave you the technical answer and set the official status for the bug. You changing the status back to unconfirmed repeatedly is arguing with that, especially after I told you not to and gave a huge explanation why. At this point, unless you have something else to contribute, this bug is being marked as completed. You may post back to bug if you have anything else to add, but do not change the status again. This is my last warning on that regard.
