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