| 1 |
Dearr Fabian, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> writes: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>> Furthermore if the ebuild has "amd64" keyword, it will certainly |
| 6 |
>> build on amd64-linux too. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Somewhat likely, but absolutely not true. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Sorry, the original phrase was vague. I meant, if an ebuild is keyworded |
| 11 |
"amd64" and "x86-linux", it will certainly work on "amd64-linux" |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
>> Therefore we propose the following cartesian product extension to |
| 14 |
>> keyword system. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> We added the keywords as is, to uniquely define which systems it works |
| 17 |
> on. Assuming something will work because it should be similar is (and |
| 18 |
> has been proven in the past to be) wrong. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Every system is different. We are grouping similar systems into |
| 21 |
corresponding keywords, and already assuming ability for |
| 22 |
extrapolation. And now we observe that ARCH and KERNEL are quite |
| 23 |
independent. They can be decomposed into two dimensions. Why don't me |
| 24 |
exploit this fact? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Cheers, |
| 27 |
Benda |
Archives