Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles

[Markos Chandras]

On 21 August 2013 20:10, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:03:30 +0100
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote:
>
>> On 21 August 2013 19:28, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
>> >
>> > Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in
>> > between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the
>> > leaf and less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of
>> > sparc keywords on sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones
>> > because at some point (~10 years ago) some dev was interested in
>> > these on this architecture but I'm pretty sure nobody uses them.
>> >
>> > In short: Reduce stable coverage to reduce the workload.
>> >
>> > Also, from what I've seen in the thread, you are talking about
>> > keywords only, right ? Do these arches keep their stable mark in
>> > profiles.desc?
>> >
>>
>> I am not familiar with portage internals to understand what
>> implications will an ~arch only architecture have if marked as stable.
>> Is there a good reason for that?
>
> Oh yes: Forbid broken deptree.
>
> x86-fbsd has always been dev profile + ~arch only. It is almost
> impossible to move it to stable profile since people (almost) never run
> 'repoman -d' and even less file bugs when they introduce broken deps.
> It is common to have portage bail out when updating your system because
> someone introduced a broken dep and didnt pay attention.
>
> amd64-fbsd is stable profile + ~arch only. People do it the correct
> way, which is: drop keywords, file a bug. Since we do not have a huge
> tree coverage here, I get about 5 such bugs a months, which are not hard
> to handle.
>

Ah, I have no strong preference then.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang