1 |
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:39:01 -0400 |
2 |
Joseph Jezak <josejx@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Your preferred method is exactly how (as a ppc keyworder) I like to |
5 |
> see these kind of bugs handled. Dropping keywords makes an awful lot |
6 |
> more work for us and hurts our users, especially since we're not |
7 |
> always very prompt at handling bugs. |
8 |
|
9 |
Well, reasoning for the HPPA team, which maintains an architecture |
10 |
that is dying rather more quickly than PPC32 (which still has all kinds |
11 |
of embedded uses and so on),, in favour of IA64, I'd rather see dropped |
12 |
keywords than new profile entries, possibly with the keyworded ebuilds |
13 |
being gradually removed after an OK. That way I can make a choice to |
14 |
keep a package (set) for a bit or to stop supporting it immediately. |
15 |
|
16 |
Since there is no "unveiling" effect in re-adding dropped keywords, as |
17 |
opposed to using profile masks that you can only remove safely by |
18 |
first revdep-checking the entire tree again, I'd rather have people |
19 |
file bug reports than touching the HPPA profile files themselves. |
20 |
|
21 |
Since we (HPPA) basically agreed to drop support for the major desktop |
22 |
environments in due time already (we still need to make that official |
23 |
some time soon and then actually work on the problem for the last time), |
24 |
dropping those keywords is a lot better than masking specific versions |
25 |
of ebuilds or specific uses of USE flags. |
26 |
|
27 |
Funnily enough, I've expressed these wishes to the people who are doing |
28 |
the *DEPEND checks before they commit (hundreds of ebuilds) time and |
29 |
again, and still ended up with sometimes years old entries in |
30 |
package.{,use.}mask files. |
31 |
|
32 |
In fact I think there's a bug open about it and I tried to get some |
33 |
discussion about it going on this very mailing list. :) |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
jer |