| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Alec Warner schrieb: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:23:33 +0200 |
| 5 |
>>> Dawid Węgliński <cla@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> I don't think it's ok. ~arch isn't training ground. It's supposed to |
| 8 |
>>>> work, so asking arch teams to keywords packages that are not supposed |
| 9 |
>>>> to work isn't good. |
| 10 |
>>> We have a "testing" branch and a "stable" branch, defined by the |
| 11 |
>>> KEYWORDS variable in the ebuilds. Package.masking stuff saying you're |
| 12 |
>>> "testing" is at the least uninformative and highly confusing and |
| 13 |
>>> unfriendly to would-be testers when in the very same context this |
| 14 |
>>> already means something different (namely, it's been too short a |
| 15 |
>>> while, wait one or two months for this version to go stable, as the |
| 16 |
>>> ~arch keywords would suggest). |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> ~arch has always been for testing ebuilds; not packages. You should |
| 19 |
>> not be using ~arch to test stuff you know doesn't work; that is what |
| 20 |
>> package.mask is for; to prevent users from accidentally installing |
| 21 |
>> broken shit. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Why do you need package.mask here? If you know, it does not work on that arch, dont keyword it. If |
| 25 |
> you know it does not work anywhere, why would you even think about adding that package? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Nuances ;) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
What does a lack of keyword mean? It means that no dev has bothered |
| 30 |
to test the package on said arch. It doesn't mean the package does |
| 31 |
not work properly on said arch. Users who run alt arches like sparc |
| 32 |
end up ~arch keywording stuff locally all the time; it would be |
| 33 |
unfortunate were they to keyword a totally broken package on sparc |
| 34 |
just because the dev didn't keyword it. Users often think this means |
| 35 |
'lack of time' not 'does not function'. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
What does -arch mean? It means that the package *will* never work on |
| 38 |
said arch (64-bit binaries on x86 for example); it does not mean 'this |
| 39 |
package *may* not work'; so keywording broken packages with -arch is |
| 40 |
also not quite correct (although arguably you could move from -arch, |
| 41 |
to ~arch, to arch and maybe get away with it.) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Package.mask can be used for evaluating packages. Many developers |
| 44 |
would suggest using overlays for these types of packages; however not |
| 45 |
everyone has an overlay and not everyone uses overlays so I don't |
| 46 |
think there should be a hard and fast rule here. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> -- |
| 51 |
> Thomas Sachau |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> |
Archives