Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:23:54
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?) by Jeremy Olexa
On 25-03-2009 08:08:50 -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> > - "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.
If you say so, I haven't checked, so that would clear the issue at least.
> > - Portage needs to be patched not to look at keywords any more, solar's > > Set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="**" in the profile, no patching needed.
Hmmm, it basically disables the entire capability. Does that also accept -arch?
> > idea involved only having explicit -arch markings for stuff known not > > to compile/work > > profile masking would also be equivalent.
That's than a "is it in our outside of the ebuild" thing, right?
> > - 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.
I think you're optimistic ;)
> > - 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.
Well, of course you are right at this point. And I largely rely on other people fixing up my mess after a sync round next to myself. I know it frustrates some people, but doing a sync is very labour intensive, and time consuming (have to say my two new disks in stripe really help reducing the time consumption thing), and I can't bring it up any more to check each and every thing I sync. I think it especially becomes a mess when noone's around to fix, like when both you and me are not around ;) (Yes, it basically all just depends on you and me...) One big solution to this problem (me being sloppy when I sync) is when we would go to gentoo-x86. Keywords are an issue then, but we already identified that Prefix keywords cannot be shared with gentoo-x86 keywords. Luckily we made all of ours unique ;) Suppose we would use haubi style PREFIX_ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=... we would just be another line. That said, now I think about it, our keywords, which differ from gentoo-x86's ones, already mark an ebuild prefix ready. So we could start dropping EAPI="prefix", because the keywords just say it all... For haubi-style ACCEPT_KEYWORDS we need a GLEP/proposal on gentoo-dev for the next EAPI. For implicit ACCEPT_KEYWORDS (like you/solari propose) we need a GLEP/proposal on gentoo-dev to get that policy through. In both cases, Prefix can adapt, but Prefix is not brought any closer to gentoo-x86 IMO by using either of both proposals, since gentoo-x86 doesn't follow it! -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level


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