| 1 |
El dom, 19-01-2014 a las 10:46 +0100, Ulrich Mueller escribió: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > El dom, 19-01-2014 a las 03:36 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió: |
| 5 |
> >> you mean * ? this already works today (at least with portage): |
| 6 |
> >> KEYWORDS="~*" |
| 7 |
> >> KEYWORDS="*" |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Currently not allowed by policy: |
| 10 |
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > I had no idea that existed :O, I guess something related with |
| 13 |
> > "specification" is missing? :/ |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Now what problem are we trying to solve? As I see it, it is mainly |
| 16 |
> one of manpower, namely that some arch teams cannot keep up with |
| 17 |
> stable requests, and I doubt that any technical solution will help |
| 18 |
> to solve this. Introducing a "noarch" keyword or allowing "*" will |
| 19 |
> potentially cause problems with dependency resolution. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Instead, we should come up with a clear set of rules under what |
| 22 |
> circumstances package maintainers are allowed to stabilise ebuilds |
| 23 |
> themselves on all architectures. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Ulrich |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Yeah, the problem is manpower and, then, we are thinking in cases like |
| 28 |
wallpapers, changes in the installation of some files (that are not arch |
| 29 |
specific)... But, how to indicate a concrete package can be handled in |
| 30 |
this special "noarch" way? It's easy for some cases like I posted, but |
| 31 |
there are others that are more difficult to handle (perl modules for |
| 32 |
example?) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
If we could agree on the kind of packages we could handle in this way |
| 35 |
(stabilizing for all arches) would be nice |
Archives