| 1 |
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 18:20:34 +0200 |
| 2 |
Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Might want a "broken" (with maybe a better name) for some of these. I |
| 5 |
> bet the ~arch of some of these is broken too, and no-one to respond to |
| 6 |
> keyword requests, just happens when it happens. |
| 7 |
> arm64 and mips are in that state too until we get that fixed and could |
| 8 |
> move to "testing" and then later "stable" in case of arm64. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This is one aspect I liked about my other proposal, that the behaviours |
| 11 |
associated with various keywords was well defined. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
--- |
| 14 |
# keywords: |
| 15 |
# - strict: arch-foo and ~arch-foo treated distinctly |
| 16 |
# - mixed: arch-foo treated as ~arch-foo |
| 17 |
# - any: packages that exist and have any keywords are ~arch-foo |
| 18 |
# |
| 19 |
# dependencies: |
| 20 |
# - enforce: referential integrity within logical keywords |
| 21 |
# is required |
| 22 |
# - warn: referential integrity within logical keywords |
| 23 |
# warns when its bad, and enforced with -d |
| 24 |
# - ignore: referential integrity is not even considered |
| 25 |
# without -e y and enforced with -e y |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
# name | keywords | dependencies |
| 28 |
stable strict check |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
# was strict ignore |
| 31 |
dev mixed warn |
| 32 |
exp mixed ignore |
| 33 |
---- |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
In that, its instructive as to the significance of the terms. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
"Unstable" and "Broken" don't really say much to me. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
But dependencies=ignore much more adequately communicates to me |
| 40 |
the state that, dependency coherence is known to be problematic |
| 41 |
and that you should not care about dependency coherence unless |
| 42 |
you have some specific agenda. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
If we can mix and match some of these designs with the arch.desc file |
| 46 |
however, I'm all for it. |
Archives