1 |
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:54:42 -0500 |
2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> So, my question is, why can't we add a noarch/~noarch keyword and see |
5 |
> how things go? If it gets abused we can always nuke it later. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Thanks, |
8 |
|
9 |
I'm just gonna say I disagree with this proposal as stated. |
10 |
|
11 |
Stability and arch support, for the purposes of QA, should be based on |
12 |
demonstrated evidence. |
13 |
|
14 |
Not speculation ( which noarch inherently is ). |
15 |
|
16 |
I'd be "OK" with a provisional flag that indicates a package /should/ |
17 |
be architecture independent, but it should be as an optional |
18 |
enhancement for users on minor arches who want to minimize their |
19 |
fussing with keywords. |
20 |
|
21 |
But KEYWORDS imo, should be a graph of demonstrated evidence, otherwise |
22 |
it pretty much makes the purpose of arch testing redundant. |
23 |
|
24 |
And yes, even vanilla perl code can have arch dependent behaviour. |
25 |
|
26 |
( I myself fell prey to pack() having some behavioural changes based on |
27 |
the users 32 vs 64bitness ) |
28 |
|
29 |
However, what I propose isn't something you can "hack in" to an |
30 |
existing EAPI's tree. |
31 |
|
32 |
You'd likely need an EAPI enhancement to implement this the way I'd |
33 |
imagine. |
34 |
|
35 |
In short: |
36 |
|
37 |
- An Ebuild should still have KEYWORDS that indicate |
38 |
- What it has been tested to work on |
39 |
- What it has been evidentially supported on |
40 |
- But an Ebuild *could* have a variable that indicates |
41 |
- That in the absence of good testing and evidence, it is |
42 |
*expected* to work on all arches. |
43 |
- End users could be provided tools to *permit* the latter class |
44 |
to be installed on their system based on the speculation |
45 |
- But it would still be "out of scope" for users who want and demand |
46 |
a tested, predictable, quality, stable system. |
47 |
|
48 |
Anything else is just weakening our quality assurance for our users, |
49 |
in order to pander to developer ease. |