| 1 |
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:33:05 -0800 |
| 2 |
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Why not allow maintainers to drop redundant stable and even ~arch |
| 5 |
> keywords from their packages? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
We already do that to a great extent; only removing the last keyword |
| 8 |
present is a bad idea, because in that case the package would need to |
| 9 |
be masked to indicate its brokenness. Otherwise repoman will warn... ;) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Then these old ebuilds will stay with _only_ slow arch keywords. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
We're already doing this too, that's not the problem in that thread; the |
| 14 |
problem is that ebuilds stay behind (regardless of dropping keywords), |
| 15 |
because they block progress as well as require extra maintenance. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> If they were working back then, they will continue to work now, since |
| 18 |
> there are not that many changes to break things as opposed to |
| 19 |
> faster-moving arches. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That's a generalization, I can just as well claim here that if a change |
| 22 |
does break something that it takes longer for that change to be fixed; |
| 23 |
especially when we're talking about slow architectures. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
With kind regards, |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 29 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 32 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 33 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives