| 1 |
On 25-03-2009 00:30:18 -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
| 2 |
> So, since we are already in a hugely reactive mode..why don't we just |
| 3 |
> get rid of prefix keywords completely? It gets hairy if the arch most |
| 4 |
> always needs patches (FreeMiNT/IRIX comes to mind). However, this is one |
| 5 |
> reason that we ask for everyone's help in submitting patches upstream. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
- "use <keyword> && bla" will no longer work (question; is it sane? well |
| 8 |
we need it in *DEPENDs at the moment for sure) |
| 9 |
- Portage needs to be patched not to look at keywords any more, solar's |
| 10 |
idea involved only having explicit -arch markings for stuff known not |
| 11 |
to compile/work |
| 12 |
- I don't like the idea: |
| 13 |
> Before anyone says "but, that will be much more likely to break my |
| 14 |
> prefix" - I refute that because we are already running on this policy |
| 15 |
> with regards to the automatic bumps. For the most part, it is smooth. |
| 16 |
> Major packages are masked if someone hasn't tested them yet (eg. gcc & bash) |
| 17 |
Thing is here, that if you look at |
| 18 |
http://stats.prefix.freens.org/keywords-packages.png, you can clearly |
| 19 |
see a "gap" between x86-linux, and ppc-macos (the prefix leader in |
| 20 |
keyworded packages). From an historical point of view, I'm almost |
| 21 |
sure this gap is largely consisting of broken packages for ppc-macos. |
| 22 |
- Last but not least, this proposal doesn't solve the keyword issue at |
| 23 |
all, it just introduces another hurdle; the change of keyword use. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Or did I mis the point? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 30 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives
