| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Tuesday 22 June 2004 17:38, foser wrote: |
| 5 |
> The simplest & best solution is just to always wait for the 'maintainers |
| 6 |
> arch' to go stable in normal circumstances, the 'maintainers arch' |
| 7 |
> should be marked as such in the ebuild somehow instead. |
| 8 |
Not all ebuilds have a single maintainer and not all herd members use the same |
| 9 |
architecture, so you'll have a jumping package-maintainer-arch keyword in the |
| 10 |
end. Don't know, if that's less complicated. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
KEYWORDS="stable arch1 arch2 ~arch3" |
| 13 |
KEYWORDS="arch1 +arch2 ~arch3" |
| 14 |
(as obvious, the + represents the maintainer arch here) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Is the former or the latter easier to implement in the current code base? Any |
| 17 |
differences in terms of calculation speed? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Carsten |
| 21 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 22 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
iD8DBQFA2FuTVwbzmvGLSW8RAu5vAJ9T3dn2eQsWj8zcYAdIORPGiWIWjACeLGB2 |
| 25 |
Sk5bd0ISviJTzSmXka7jexA= |
| 26 |
=E70G |
| 27 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives