| 1 |
Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
<snip> |
| 3 |
> Most notably, in Prefix all keywords are full GLEP53 style, which |
| 4 |
> results in e.g. amd64-linux. We did this on purpose, because in Prefix |
| 5 |
> we don't necessarily are on Gentoo Linux. We also chose to expand fbsd, |
| 6 |
> nbsd and obsd to their long variants, mainly because the short variants |
| 7 |
> might clash in the future, for e.g. OpenBSD, OliveBSD or PicoBSD, |
| 8 |
> polyBSD or DragonflyBSD, DesktopBSD. (At some point we were a bit |
| 9 |
> over-enthausiastic.) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I would like to hear some opinions on the keywords in general, as well |
| 12 |
> as the particular problem of having Gentoo Linux, and a Linux supported |
| 13 |
> by Gentoo Prefix. Right now there is just the difference of "-linux" |
| 14 |
> appended, however this is not the clearest distinction between the two. |
| 15 |
> Perhaps using KEYWORDS for Prefix keywords is not the best thing to do, |
| 16 |
> and should we use something like PREFIX_KEYWORDS? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Ignoring the bit about how to name the keywords.. ;) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I am undecided about Prefix keywords in the normal KEYWORDS variable. In |
| 22 |
particular, we are overloading the -linux keyword to mean that it will |
| 23 |
run on any linux that Gentoo Prefix supports. This includes, Gentoo, |
| 24 |
RHEL, SLES, FreeMint, $OTHER. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Is there any problem with "overloading" the keywords like that? If not, |
| 27 |
then it shouldn't be a problem to keep prefix keywords in the KEYWORDS |
| 28 |
field. OTOH, I don't think we should add another variable to ebuilds. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Thoughts? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-Jeremy |
Archives