| 1 |
> So, my question is, why can't we add a noarch/~noarch keyword and see |
| 2 |
> how things go? If it gets abused we can always nuke it later. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
I'm pretty sure we already discussed this in very much detail in the past at |
| 5 |
least once, and came to the conclusion that there are problems with that |
| 6 |
approach. What's different now? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Sorry, but for the moment your mail is a bit big on fluffy ideas and a bit thin |
| 9 |
on details how it's going to work... as unsorted examples, |
| 10 |
* how is allarches supposed to interact with use.stable.mask? |
| 11 |
* who is doing allarches stabilizations? |
| 12 |
* what are the allowed dependencies? obviously an allarches package can only |
| 13 |
depend on other allarches packages... |
| 14 |
* what happens if an allarches package gets, e.g., masked on one arch? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Andreas K. Hüttel |
| 18 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 19 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 20 |
(council, qa, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice) |
Archives