Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Rémi Cardona <remi@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:52:01 +0100
Le 06/11/2009 15:45, Fabian Groffen a écrit :
> Sounds like we could benefit from the "noarch" approach known in the RPM
> world, such that all these packages can also be immediately keyworded
> and stabilised for all arches.  Would greatly simplify things for a
> great deal of packages, maybe?

While this is probably a good idea in theory, I can't help but think it 
won't really help us.

For example, in other distros, X11 protocols headers (x11-proto/*) are 
marked as "noarch" [1]. With the recent mess that happened in X 
libs/protos, "noarch" is something we'll never be able to use for those 
packages because the stabilization of "noarch" and "arch" packages need 
to happen all at the same time. Other distros don't have different 
package versions across arches. We do...

So as far as I'm concerned, "noarch" will be of very limited use to us, 
maybe a few X cursor themes, that's about it. It's not the kind of 
packages that get a frequent releases anyway.

I just don't see how "noarch" will help the portage tree.

However, I would like to see the council get in touch with "problematic" 
arch teams *more* *often* to see what their status is, and maybe be more 
proactive when it comes to putting an arch to the dev status.

Cheers,

Rémi

[1] 
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/xorg-x11-proto-devel/devel/xorg-x11-proto-devel.spec?view=markup


Replies:
Re: Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
-- Hans de Graaff
References:
[RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
-- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
-- Christian Faulhammer
Re: Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
-- Markos Chandras
Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
-- Christian Faulhammer
Re: Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
-- Ben de Groot
Re: Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
-- Joseph Jezak
Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
-- Ryan Hill
Re: Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
-- Tobias Klausmann
Re: Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
-- Petteri Räty
Re: Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
-- Nirbheek Chauhan
Re: Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
-- Fabian Groffen
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
Next by thread:
Re: Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
Previous by date:
Re: Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
Next by date:
Re: Amount of useflags enabled by default


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.