Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:13:58
In Reply to: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?) by Jeremy Olexa
On 25-03-2009 00:30:18 -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> So, since we are already in a hugely reactive mode..why don't we just > get rid of prefix keywords completely? It gets hairy if the arch most > always needs patches (FreeMiNT/IRIX comes to mind). However, this is one > reason that we ask for everyone's help in submitting patches upstream.
- "use <keyword> && bla" will no longer work (question; is it sane? well we need it in *DEPENDs at the moment for sure) - Portage needs to be patched not to look at keywords any more, solar's idea involved only having explicit -arch markings for stuff known not to compile/work - I don't like the idea:
> Before anyone says "but, that will be much more likely to break my > prefix" - I refute that because we are already running on this policy > with regards to the automatic bumps. For the most part, it is smooth. > Major packages are masked if someone hasn't tested them yet (eg. gcc & bash)
Thing is here, that if you look at, you can clearly see a "gap" between x86-linux, and ppc-macos (the prefix leader in keyworded packages). From an historical point of view, I'm almost sure this gap is largely consisting of broken packages for ppc-macos. - Last but not least, this proposal doesn't solve the keyword issue at all, it just introduces another hurdle; the change of keyword use. Or did I mis the point? -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?) Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o>