| 1 |
Dave Shanker wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 9/6/05, *Martin Schlemmer* <azarah@g.o |
| 3 |
> <mailto:azarah@g.o>> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> arch - in theory stable |
| 6 |
> ~arch - in theory should work, but needs testing |
| 7 |
> -arch - do not work at all |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Just out of curiosity, why are there know broken packages in portage? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
What works perfectly on one arch may be horribly broken on another. |
| 14 |
Remember, Gentoo runs on far more than just linux/x86. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Wouldn't -arch packages best be handled outside of the official portage |
| 17 |
> tree such as a developers overlay? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
No, see above. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Couldn't the same be said for pmasked |
| 22 |
> also? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Again, see above. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> If we were to remove pmasked and -arch packages from portage and |
| 27 |
> and handle them via overlays, the portage tree would contain only |
| 28 |
> working versions of programs and testing versions of the same program |
| 29 |
> which would be ~arch'd. This should should suffice for most users; but |
| 30 |
> If they want to run the "broken" programs, they'd download the overlay |
| 31 |
> and install it again. No need to add lines to both package.unmask and |
| 32 |
> package.keywors either. Once broken package is fixed, it should be moved |
| 33 |
> into portage for testing and then finally unarched. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Same song, new verse... |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-Steve |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives