| 1 |
On Tuesday 09 March 2004 12:57, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:47:26PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Now for ARCH, a recent (official?) policy states that no ARCH-specific |
| 4 |
> > patches should be applied to source code. If a patch needs to be applied, |
| 5 |
> > it should work on all ARCHs. To this end, I can't see why ARCH-specific |
| 6 |
> > keywords need to exist at all. This leaves: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Not having separate patches for each arch is fine by me, but you see to |
| 9 |
> ignore the fact that some packages just won't work on some hardware. |
| 10 |
> Eg 'mol' won't run on a non-ppc system, and ARM and HPPA don't have any |
| 11 |
> Java support presently (nothing exists upstream for them). |
| 12 |
> For any packages like these (there are plenty of them), |
| 13 |
> hardware-dependant keywords are required. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This is a valid point where my idea breaks down. Hmm... I still feel that it |
| 16 |
is unconstructive to assume that everything doesn't work unless explicitly |
| 17 |
stated. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The ARM/HPPA not supporting Java isn't too hard. Simply mask the JREs and JDKs |
| 20 |
on those platforms. The 'mol' one is a little more difficult. Perhaps masking |
| 21 |
it using /profiles/package.mask and then unmasking |
| 22 |
using /profiles/default-ppc/package.unmask? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Regards, |
| 25 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives