| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Yes you are! That said we could always mark a specific ebuild -arch if |
| 4 |
it doesnt work there. I think such a system is the only way manage a |
| 5 |
large number of architectures. Debian might have many evils, but they |
| 6 |
support alternate architectures much better than we do. Have you tried |
| 7 |
installing gentoo on sparc recently without ~sparc (which breaks lots of |
| 8 |
stuff)? And not even mentionning stuff like ia64 or alpha... And its |
| 9 |
only going to get worse if we add more. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Tester |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 19:49, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 14 |
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:41:50PM +0100, Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 15 |
> > We could approach this problem from another perspective. Just have -arch |
| 16 |
> > flags (and +arch flags) for packages which are truly arch specific.. And |
| 17 |
> > for the rest, a package could not be marked stable unless it has been |
| 18 |
> > tested on all arches. Maybe using a set of tinderboxes.. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Am I reading this right -- you want to create a bottleneck where an |
| 22 |
> application can't be marked stable on an arch that may need it to be |
| 23 |
> stable unless it's also ready to be marked stable on all of the 10 |
| 24 |
> architectures we have? |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Olivier Crête |
| 27 |
tester@g.o |
| 28 |
Gentoo Developer |
Archives