Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:51:07
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?) by Michael Haubenwallner
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Michael Haubenwallner
<haubi@g.o> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 00:30 -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? > > Having the unstable keyword in an ebuild indicates that this package > should work on that platform - or more exactly, a previous version was > likely to at least compile there. > > When there are no keywords, prefix-users won't see if they would need to > do a *new* port (or at least a test) for their platform or just to *fix* > an existing port. IMO the difference is that if one does not really need > a package, trying to *fix* might be a lower just-for-fun-barrier than to > do it *new*. > >>  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. > > Dropping all keywords wont change anything here... > >> 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) > > Agreed, but I like my keywords ;) > > /haubi/
Ok, I'll stop pushing this idea but it was at least valuable in exploring alternatives. Maybe in X months we can relook this issue and see if it still makes sense, etc. Thanks, Jeremy