| 1 |
On 12:41 Thu 13 Feb , Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 08:46:33PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > Stable keywords on "~arch only" architectures in ebuilds. |
| 4 |
> > > |
| 5 |
> > > Possible options include |
| 6 |
> > > * drop 'em all |
| 7 |
> > > * require a "dropping by tree aging" |
| 8 |
> > > * allow for arch-team purposes limited stable marking, but package |
| 9 |
> > > maintainers neednt care |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > How about moving the status of ~arch only profiles to exp in |
| 12 |
> > profiles.desc as vapier suggested, or is that covered in your last |
| 13 |
> > option? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Can do that, sure... I didnt really intend to exhaustively describe everything |
| 16 |
> when writing this mail, that's why I linked to bug and ml thread. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Yeah, this idea of dropping keywords wholesale totally screws with new |
| 19 |
or revived ports. I much prefer repoman ignoring stable on a given arch |
| 20 |
by marking it exp (during active porting) or dev (when the port is |
| 21 |
thought to basically work) as Mike described in |
| 22 |
<https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=498332#c5> / |
| 23 |
<https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=498332#c11>. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Thanks, |
| 27 |
Donnie |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 30 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux <http://dberkholz.com> |
| 31 |
Analyst, RedMonk <http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/> |
Archives