| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:02 PM Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 17:55:21 +0200 |
| 4 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Plus, the eclasses explicitly allow KEYWORDS to be overridden by the |
| 7 |
> > ebuild: |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > : ${KEYWORDS:=alpha amd64 arm arm64 hppa ia64 m68k ~mips ppc ppc64 ~riscv s390 sh sparc x86 ~ppc-aix ~x64-cygwin ~amd64-fbsd ~x86-fbsd ~amd64-linux ~x86-linux ~ppc-macos ~x64-macos ~x86-macos ~m68k-mint ~sparc-solaris ~sparc64-solaris ~x64-solaris ~x86-solaris} |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I guess the clear limitation that the proposed policy would create, is |
| 12 |
> that it would be illegal for a package on say, riscv, to be stabilized, |
| 13 |
> if it depended on any acct-* packages. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Because the eclass would say "riscv ain't stable", and policy would say |
| 16 |
> "you can't change keywords on acct-*", which would necessitate that all |
| 17 |
> acct-* be marked stable for riscv via changing the eclass, in order for |
| 18 |
> the riscv package to be marked stable. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
But that's exactly what we would want to happen: the value in the |
| 21 |
eclass should be updated, not individual ebuilds. |
Archives