| 1 |
On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 |
| 3 |
> support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own |
| 4 |
> thread. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> How often do architecture specific bugs really exist in languages like |
| 7 |
> perl, python etc? From what I've seen they are pretty rare. Not to mention, |
| 8 |
> if we found one somewhere, we could adjust keywords as necessary. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Also, if someone did inadvertently keyword a package with noarch that didn't |
| 11 |
> work everywhere, it would be a matter of adjusting the keywords for that |
| 12 |
> package. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> So, my question is, why can't we add a noarch/~noarch keyword and see |
| 15 |
> how things go? If it gets abused we can always nuke it later. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
1. How is this going to work when noarch package depends on non-nonarch |
| 19 |
package? I mean, will all the package managers actually work? Have you |
| 20 |
did some minimal testing before bringing this up? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
2. Who will be responsible for handling noarch stablereqs? Will there |
| 23 |
be a noarch arch team? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Best regards, |
| 27 |
Michał Górny |
Archives