| 1 |
On Sun, 07 May 2017 22:53:52 +0200 |
| 2 |
David Seifert <soap@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> This is probably the smaller problem. The link shows a bug where none |
| 5 |
> of the aforementioned arch teams have keyworded the requested packages |
| 6 |
> in 4 months. How would the arches.desc proposal fix "dead arch teams"? |
| 7 |
> Sure, it will make maintenance easier for pure stablereqs, but the |
| 8 |
> other half of keywording does not happen. All the ia64/ppc/sparc |
| 9 |
> KEYWORDREQs I have filed for sci-* packages I have closed and |
| 10 |
> dekeyworded for revdeps. We have had KEYWORDREQs open for over a year |
| 11 |
> with 0 activity. If the keywording inactivity continues, I will also |
| 12 |
> continue to dekeyword packages |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I think its more "and" not "or", wherein arches.desc provides a pathway |
| 15 |
that makes dropping these profiles to exp less problematic. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
1. Introduce arches.desc |
| 18 |
2. Brand problem arches with the relevant flags |
| 19 |
3. Drop problem arches to dev/exp |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That way we can still do some relevant keyword consistency checks |
| 22 |
while not holding back stable. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Currently dropping arches to dev/exp tends to imply that *all* keywording |
| 25 |
consistency goes out the window into the EDONTCARE bucket, where the desired |
| 26 |
outcome may only be certain *types* of keywording consistency (namely: stable) |
| 27 |
is EDONTCARE but overall consistency (keywords being present) is still desired. |
Archives