| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> And why does repoman do that? |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Oh. Yeah. Because people with an attitude like yours think that the |
| 5 |
> correct way to fix a repoman message is to start nuking arch keywords, |
| 6 |
> ignoring what it does to the rest of the tree. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Dropping keywords works perfectly to have repoman quit complaining, you |
| 9 |
just have to do a recursive dropping on the rdeps of this package. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Perhaps because the people maintaining those archs have better things |
| 12 |
> to do that deal with the same silly ill-thought-out arguments every |
| 13 |
> three months. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
cia/cvs commits ml says something different, gentoo wise at least. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>> I mean, if vapier can maintain arm/sh/s390, by himself, to a better |
| 18 |
>> degree than the mips *TEAM* can do, that should be an indication of a |
| 19 |
>> problem. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> That's an interesting assertion. Can you back it up? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Feel free to run imlate scripts and come up with some numbers. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Note that I hate whining and I love get solutions. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
MOST of the packages runs fine if they build fine, MOST of the |
| 28 |
endian-issues or the 64bit-issues got caught by ppc and amd64 and there |
| 29 |
aren't that many right now. Ugly arch specific codepath could be |
| 30 |
present, but, as I said, usually you catch those breaking on gcc. So |
| 31 |
having some way to test if the package builds (cross toolchain) and if |
| 32 |
the package at least runs (qemu) IS something that should let small |
| 33 |
arches with large tree coverage improve a bit. Otherwise you can just |
| 34 |
reduce the tree coverage. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
lu |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Luca Barbato |
| 41 |
Gentoo Council Member |
| 42 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
| 43 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives