Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:08:04
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations by Fabian Groffen
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 06-11-2009 19:48:16 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Petteri R├Ąty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: >>> In the past when smaller arches were not that active we used to mark >>> Java packages stable after testing by at least one arch team. The >>> probability to find arch specific issues in something like Java is not >>> so high so I think arrangements like this are acceptable when the arch >>> teams have problems keeping up. >> I think the same should be extended to other languages such as Perl >> and Python (unless they have portions which are C/C++) > > Sounds like we could benefit from the "noarch" approach known in the RPM > world, such that all these packages can also be immediately keyworded > and stabilised for all arches. Would greatly simplify things for a > great deal of packages, maybe?
We could introduce "noarch" and "~noarch" KEYWORDS, add "noarch" to the default ACCEPT_KEYWORDS setting for all profiles, and instruct unstable users to add "~noarch" to ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. -- Thanks, Zac


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations Peter Volkov <pva@g.o>