| 1 |
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:03:30 +0100 |
| 2 |
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 21 August 2013 19:28, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in |
| 7 |
> > between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the |
| 8 |
> > leaf and less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of |
| 9 |
> > sparc keywords on sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones |
| 10 |
> > because at some point (~10 years ago) some dev was interested in |
| 11 |
> > these on this architecture but I'm pretty sure nobody uses them. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > In short: Reduce stable coverage to reduce the workload. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Also, from what I've seen in the thread, you are talking about |
| 16 |
> > keywords only, right ? Do these arches keep their stable mark in |
| 17 |
> > profiles.desc? |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I am not familiar with portage internals to understand what |
| 21 |
> implications will an ~arch only architecture have if marked as stable. |
| 22 |
> Is there a good reason for that? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Oh yes: Forbid broken deptree. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
x86-fbsd has always been dev profile + ~arch only. It is almost |
| 27 |
impossible to move it to stable profile since people (almost) never run |
| 28 |
'repoman -d' and even less file bugs when they introduce broken deps. |
| 29 |
It is common to have portage bail out when updating your system because |
| 30 |
someone introduced a broken dep and didnt pay attention. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
amd64-fbsd is stable profile + ~arch only. People do it the correct |
| 33 |
way, which is: drop keywords, file a bug. Since we do not have a huge |
| 34 |
tree coverage here, I get about 5 such bugs a months, which are not hard |
| 35 |
to handle. |
Archives