| 1 |
On 20/05/16 14:11, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
>> keywording for a new arch should normally only be done when necessary, |
| 4 |
>> mainly if it is a direct dependency of another package. There is no need |
| 5 |
>> to keywor it for an arch until it has been tested on that arch by some |
| 6 |
>> user / developer ... certainly not because some committing developer |
| 7 |
>> think it is nice to have all arches listed just in case. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> I should actually elaborate on this (in addition to fixing some spelling |
| 10 |
> errors..), something to the line of "There is no need to keyword it for |
| 11 |
> an arch until it is being _used_ by some user/developer on that arch" |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
My understanding as a prospective maintainer and dev, was that when you |
| 14 |
write an ebuild, you keyword the arches where /you personally/ have |
| 15 |
successfully built the package as ~arch . If you as maintainer or a |
| 16 |
user(s) then request stabilisation, that is where the arch teams, arch |
| 17 |
testing, etc. come into play. The only exception (if any!) is where |
| 18 |
amd64 and x86 often have an overlap whereby if it builds on one .. |
| 19 |
there's a good probability it will work on the other. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
As far as fresh *new* arches to Gentoo, is this really a thing?! Surely |
| 22 |
we need a body of maintainers willing to support a new arch, and a new |
| 23 |
'team' forming for such purposes, for bug fixes, stabilisation, etc. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Sounds to me rather a case of simply misunderstanding what the KEYWORDS |
| 26 |
actually means and does in the context of Gentoo as a distro, else I've |
| 27 |
got the wrong end of the stick somewhere .... |
Archives