| 1 |
Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 25-03-2009 00:30:18 -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
| 3 |
>> So, since we are already in a hugely reactive mode..why don't we just |
| 4 |
>> get rid of prefix keywords completely? It gets hairy if the arch most |
| 5 |
>> always needs patches (FreeMiNT/IRIX comes to mind). However, this is one |
| 6 |
>> reason that we ask for everyone's help in submitting patches upstream. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> - "use <keyword> && bla" will no longer work (question; is it sane? well |
| 9 |
> we need it in *DEPENDs at the moment for sure) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Reply to both you and mduft, same point. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The profile sets ARCH which is put into USE. so "use $ARCH && bla" will |
| 14 |
still work. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> - Portage needs to be patched not to look at keywords any more, solar's |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="**" in the profile, no patching needed. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> idea involved only having explicit -arch markings for stuff known not |
| 21 |
> to compile/work |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
profile masking would also be equivalent. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> - I don't like the idea: |
| 26 |
>> Before anyone says "but, that will be much more likely to break my |
| 27 |
>> prefix" - I refute that because we are already running on this policy |
| 28 |
>> with regards to the automatic bumps. For the most part, it is smooth. |
| 29 |
>> Major packages are masked if someone hasn't tested them yet (eg. gcc & bash) |
| 30 |
> Thing is here, that if you look at |
| 31 |
> http://stats.prefix.freens.org/keywords-packages.png, you can clearly |
| 32 |
> see a "gap" between x86-linux, and ppc-macos (the prefix leader in |
| 33 |
> keyworded packages). From an historical point of view, I'm almost |
| 34 |
> sure this gap is largely consisting of broken packages for ppc-macos. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I'm not convinced. Nearly every package I add, I'm fairly sure would |
| 37 |
work on macos these days. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> - Last but not least, this proposal doesn't solve the keyword issue at |
| 40 |
> all, it just introduces another hurdle; the change of keyword use. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
We already operate in this fashion as pointed out with automatic version |
| 43 |
bumps. (ie. xfce-4.6 still does not work but it was added to the tree - |
| 44 |
both missing deps AND QA issues) - Over the last 2 days, I have been |
| 45 |
reacting to it. Nothing was proactive anyway. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Or did I mis the point? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Clearer now? |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-Jeremy |
Archives
