Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: package.keywords-compatible snippets when stabilizing multiple packages

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 14:17 Wed 16 Feb     , Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 09:10 Tue 15 Feb, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 19:19 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." a écrit :
> > > > On 2/14/11 9:13 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > > > > And http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=349053#c1 ?   I tried to
> > > > > provide a clue howto get usable p.keywords list easy.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO it's in the middle. I still have to do a manual step, but at least
> > > > it's pretty straightforward. Anyway, I think a list that can be blindly
> > > > copy-pasted makes things even easier.
> > >
> > > I don't think making a list for each arch is going to make anything any
> > > easier for maintainers requesting stabilization, which means those list
> > > we need more time to generate before being released. You just move the
> > > problem to another place.
> >
> > Why would you need to do that? Can't you just make a single list that
> > either has keywords for every arch or a ** ? Presumably every arch needs
> > a certain set of packages stable, and it doesn't matter if you
> > redundantly specify packages that are already stable.
>
> Yes it does. I for one just use the list, compile and test all
> the packages. If an entry is already stable, that effort is
> wasted.
>
> I think automatically generating per-arch lists and dumping them
> on the bug is a nice way to do it. Having a "tabled list" for use
> by the maintainer and then generating one comment per
> arch-specific list seems like a good idea to me. Yes it is more
> verbose on the bug, but that is a little price to pay, I'd say.

Is using autounmask an option instead? That generates a nice little file 
with everything that was actually unmasked, assuming it's a single 
dependency tree of packages.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com