| 1 |
Matt Turner posted on Fri, 20 May 2016 21:47:56 -0700 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> He's saying people add new packages and then speculatively add keywords |
| 4 |
> for a bunch of architectures that they haven't tested. This causes |
| 5 |
> unnecessary packages to be keyworded on archs that don't want them and |
| 6 |
> can hardly afford the extra load. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I can even visualize the argument in support, too. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
"Well, the package is known to work on that arch on Fedora..." |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That may be, but has the package been actually tested to work on that |
| 13 |
arch within the gentoo context, and is it likely to be practical for the |
| 14 |
minor arch to continue to support? It's not a question of whether it |
| 15 |
worked on fedora or not. It's a question of whether it has been tested |
| 16 |
on gentoo or not, and whether that arch's users on gentoo find it useful |
| 17 |
enough to be worth the trouble to maintain over time and other software |
| 18 |
changes on that arch. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 22 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 23 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives