| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 17/07/14 08:28 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 5 |
> I recently noticed this: |
| 6 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=502836 |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> imlib2 ebuild can only be stabilized in one round for all arches |
| 9 |
> as KEYWORDS are set in eclass depending on E_STATE="release". That |
| 10 |
> has an important drawback as forces all arches to be done at the |
| 11 |
> same time and, since some are much slower than others, forces all |
| 12 |
> to wait for them. And, as that can depend on even more |
| 13 |
> stabilizations (like it's the case) all that bugs blocking the |
| 14 |
> stabilization need to also be done for *all* arches before. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I am not sure if any policy exists for this, but I would forbid to |
| 17 |
> make this due this issue. I would instead move to use KEYWORDS en |
| 18 |
> ebuild as done usually. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> What do you think? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Unless there is some sort of need to synchronize stable keywords |
| 25 |
across multiple packages in an identical fashion, that is -so |
| 26 |
important- it can't be left to AT's and maintainers to ensure the |
| 27 |
stablereq bugs are filed across them all at once on their own, I don't |
| 28 |
see a reason for setting KEYWORDS in an eclass. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
So, +1 for moving KEYWORDS to ebuilds. I'm not sure if "forbidding" |
| 31 |
is necessary, as I think strongly discouraging all overly-complicated |
| 32 |
solutions like this one would suffice. (and yes i know the irony of |
| 33 |
this statement given that I'm in the gx86-multilib project :) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 37 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlPH2RYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCq3gD7B0Sf5QEs3PUSLfjIywP4HPp6 |
| 40 |
wkKHXP/i3/1N846wH8YA/0h+4yWByW6AmKS6ii+ZGwvy6W/HwowMnXOGOMPgtBux |
| 41 |
=zS/0 |
| 42 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives