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 13:10:12
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?) by Fabian Groffen
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> 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)
Reply to both you and mduft, same point. The profile sets ARCH which is put into USE. so "use $ARCH && bla" will still work.
> - Portage needs to be patched not to look at keywords any more, solar's
Set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="**" in the profile, no patching needed.
> idea involved only having explicit -arch markings for stuff known not > to compile/work
profile masking would also be equivalent.
> - 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.
I'm not convinced. Nearly every package I add, I'm fairly sure would work on macos these days.
> - Last but not least, this proposal doesn't solve the keyword issue at > all, it just introduces another hurdle; the change of keyword use.
We already operate in this fashion as pointed out with automatic version bumps. (ie. xfce-4.6 still does not work but it was added to the tree - both missing deps AND QA issues) - Over the last 2 days, I have been reacting to it. Nothing was proactive anyway.
> > Or did I mis the point?
Clearer now? -Jeremy