| 1 |
On 3/18/20 10:54 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> So, my question is, why can't we add a noarch/~noarch keyword and see |
| 4 |
> how things go? If it gets abused we can always nuke it later. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
This is a good goal, but as others have pointed out, adding a new magic |
| 8 |
keyword poses some workflow problems. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
We already have the ability to fake this. Instead of KEYWORDS="~noarch", |
| 11 |
if you really believe that your package is architecture-independent, you |
| 12 |
can just add all ~arch keywords to it. If you're right, no one will ever |
| 13 |
notice, and if you're wrong, you'll get shit for it -- just like you |
| 14 |
would have if you marked it ~noarch incorrectly. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Maintainers can do their own stabilization (on all arches) for those |
| 17 |
packages. I hesitate to invoke "common sense," but in cases where common |
| 18 |
sense truly does prevail, you should have no problem keywording and |
| 19 |
stabilizing a package on all arches that e.g. downloads a PDF of API |
| 20 |
documentation. |
Archives