Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: grozin@g.o
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:09:09
Message-Id: alpine.LFD.2.03.1401180008060.13945@star.inp.nsk.su
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Tom Wijsman
1 On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:
2 > On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:31:54 +0100
3 > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
4 >>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, grozin wrote:
5 >>> Maybe, a good solution is to introduce a special arch, "noarch", for
6 >>> such packages (similar to what's done in the rpm world). Then, if a
7 >>> package is ~noarch, it is automatically considered ~arch for all
8 >>> arches. Similar for stable. The maintainer should be able to keyword
9 >>> ~noarch and to stabilize noarch. Comments?
10 >>
11 >> How would you handle dependencies in such a scenario? All dependencies
12 >> must be keyworded or stable on all architectures, before the package
13 >> can be keyworded or stabilised on noarch?
14 >
15 > Maybe we can let the package managers only perceive it as keyworded or
16 > stable if all of its dependencies are keyworded or stable on the
17 > architecture that the user runs. Then we can have repoman just ignore
18 > checking dependencies' keywords when we keyword or stabilize them.
19 Very reasonable.
20
21 Andrey

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy "Manuel RĂ¼ger" <mrueg@g.o>