1 |
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Michael Haubenwallner |
2 |
<haubi@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 00:30 -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> So, since we are already in a hugely reactive mode..why don't we just |
6 |
>> get rid of prefix keywords completely? |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Having the unstable keyword in an ebuild indicates that this package |
9 |
> should work on that platform - or more exactly, a previous version was |
10 |
> likely to at least compile there. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> When there are no keywords, prefix-users won't see if they would need to |
13 |
> do a *new* port (or at least a test) for their platform or just to *fix* |
14 |
> an existing port. IMO the difference is that if one does not really need |
15 |
> a package, trying to *fix* might be a lower just-for-fun-barrier than to |
16 |
> do it *new*. |
17 |
> |
18 |
>> It gets hairy if the arch most |
19 |
>> always needs patches (FreeMiNT/IRIX comes to mind). However, this is one |
20 |
>> reason that we ask for everyone's help in submitting patches upstream. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Dropping all keywords wont change anything here... |
23 |
> |
24 |
>> Before anyone says "but, that will be much more likely to break my |
25 |
>> prefix" - I refute that because we are already running on this policy |
26 |
>> with regards to the automatic bumps. For the most part, it is smooth. |
27 |
>> Major packages are masked if someone hasn't tested them yet (eg. gcc & bash) |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Agreed, but I like my keywords ;) |
30 |
> |
31 |
> /haubi/ |
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
Ok, I'll stop pushing this idea but it was at least valuable in |
35 |
exploring alternatives. Maybe in X months we can relook this issue and |
36 |
see if it still makes sense, etc. |
37 |
|
38 |
Thanks, |
39 |
Jeremy |