| 1 |
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:16:43 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:10:23 +0100 |
| 5 |
> Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > As detailed before, -* has a different meaning defined by policy; if |
| 7 |
> > we want to see that changed it should be brought up for a vote, |
| 8 |
> > otherwise its usage in discussions like these seems to suggest to |
| 9 |
> > break an existing policy. So, I read this as "arch" whenever it is |
| 10 |
> > brought up. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> You would have to do this across an EAPI, since it's a change that |
| 13 |
> matters to the package mangler. Right now, if a -* is there, the |
| 14 |
> package mangler shouldn't suggest changing accepted keywords for that |
| 15 |
> package if it's suggesting how to deal with an unsatisfiable |
| 16 |
> resolution. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
+1, in that case changing to ** indeed would be harmful; because -* |
| 19 |
denotes that the package has been tested not to work, so suggesting ** |
| 20 |
would be a waste of time. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
With kind regards, |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 26 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 29 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 30 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives