| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:07:30 +0100
|
| 5 |
Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
> Ok bad example on the posix-sh file. But anyway even you can check |
| 7 |
> what stuff the thing does and decide upon it. Anyway even tho you |
| 8 |
> nitpick on something you don't need to. |
| 9 |
> There is at minimal the binary files example where you just place them |
| 10 |
> somewhere into $DATADIR, and oh cp a |
| 11 |
> $DESTDIR/$DATADIR/$PN/mybinaryfile (image/pdfstuff/whatever) is so |
| 12 |
> unportable... So we already know that it might have use now lets |
| 13 |
> focus onto finding out if there is enough consumers it is worth to |
| 14 |
> provide something easier than keywording it all archs and then |
| 15 |
> stabling them, shall we? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
A long long time ago, Gentoo had a developer who keyworded lots of
|
| 18 |
things that he thought were "probably portable" ~sparc. Needless to say,
|
| 19 |
he was often wrong, despite being considerably more experienced on
|
| 20 |
portability issues than most package maintainers. Clearing that mess up
|
| 21 |
took several years of hard work...
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
What you're proposing will make things harder for arch teams, not
|
| 24 |
easier. It will also make things harder for package maintainers when
|
| 25 |
they suddenly have to switch their packages from being noarch to being
|
| 26 |
most but not all archs. It will also make things harder for users, who
|
| 27 |
accept ~noarch for a package which then gets changed to use ~archs
|
| 28 |
instead, resulting in a downgrade.
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
- --
|
| 31 |
Ciaran McCreesh
|
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iEYEARECAAYFAk1BqFQACgkQ96zL6DUtXhH3qACfVZsjmWZylfGWt+l05XNKC88W
|
| 36 |
plEAniXUgi6evOcpL9bxTWNnjf/+7QDb
|
| 37 |
=ghHT
|
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives