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 
still work.

> - 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?

Clearer now?

-Jeremy