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