Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Reminder: ALLARCHES
Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 14:59:01
Message-Id: 112481953.JFJUYNVNl1@liwardyna
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Reminder: ALLARCHES by Maciej Mrozowski
1 On Monday 02 of May 2016 16:43:01 you wrote:
2 | On Saturday 30 of April 2016 23:16:42 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
3 | | Hi all,
4 | |
5 | | just as a small reminder, to ease the load on all arch teams:
6 | |
7 | | If a stablerequest has the keyword ALLARCHES set, then
8 | | * the first arch that tests successfully and stabilizes
9 | | * can and *should* immediately stabilize for all requested arches!
10 | |
11 | | Whether this keyword is set on a bug is decision of the package
12 | | maintainer.
13 | |
14 | | For example, Perl team sets ALLARCHES normall for all pure-perl packages
15 | | (i.e., no compilation / gcc involved).
16 | |
17 | | Here's an example how this was used:
18 | | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=578408
19 | | https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=44c2d31dfc61bb3e2aee3
20 | | 70 9cb5a784b213511fa
21 |
22 | Going further, perhaps introducing something along the lines of 'noarch' to
23 | KEYWORDS syntax would solve the problem in long run?
24 | Or do we really need to have fine grained control over packages visibility
25 | even for those that are really processor architecture agnostic?
26
27 Yes, subject was discussed:
28 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/63776/match=noarch
29 or
30 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/89824/match=noarch
31
32 but I perhaps it's worth re-revisiting since it's hard to find definitive
33 conclusion to those topics.
34
35 regards
36 MM

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature