Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

[Gordon Pettey]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:47 AM Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 6:52 AM Gerion Entrup <gerion.entrup@×××××.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Am Donnerstag, 19. März 2020, 02:59:56 CET schrieb Kent Fredric:
>> > On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:52:25 +0000
>> > James Le Cuirot <chewi@g.o> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Not quite. Tools like repoman will need to be updated to understand
>> > > that an ebuild with KEYWORDS="amd64" can depend on another ebuild with
>> > > only KEYWORDS="noarch". I do think the idea has merit though.
>> >
>> > But the inverse is _not_ true, an ebuild with KEYWORDS="noarch"
>> > *cannot* depend on another ebuild with only KEYWORDS="amd64".
>> Maybe I misunderstand something but shouldn't that be the normal case?
>> Every single Python package (candidates for noarch) for example depends
>> on the Python interpreter, which must have non noarch keywords.
>>
>>
>> > Otherwise it breaks the entire stabilization graph.
>> The condition would be: If the interpreter is stable for an arch, all
>> it's interpreted code is also stable for this arch.
>>
>
> Much of the concern is that this condition is not true for all interpreted
> code.
>
> -A
>
>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Gerion
>>
>
If noarch is an alias that includes all keywords, KEYWORDS="noarch -sparc"
works (in Portage, not sure what PMS says about keyword additivity) and
doesn't break your keyword dependency graph for a Python package that for
whatever reason doesn't function on sparc.

Semantically, noarch says it hasn't been tested on any arch, so Kent's
evidence follows. Once you get a negative test result from an arch, you add
-arch to that package. It's not called "allarches".