Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Michael Haubenwallner <haubi@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:30:26
In Reply to: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?) by Jeremy Olexa
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/ -- Michael Haubenwallner Gentoo on a different level


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