1 |
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 21:10, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 13:58, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tuesday 03 February 2004 16:28, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
4 |
> > > db-4.1.25_p1-r3 KEYWORDS="ia64 ppc amd64 ppc64 hppa" |
5 |
> > > db-4.0.14-r2 KEYWORDS="x86 sparc alpha mips" |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > For this ebuild we might look into moving db-4.1 into stable. In any case |
8 |
> > I seriously doubt whether it is wise for non-experimental architectures |
9 |
> > to mark ebuilds stable that are not stable for the main arch (x86) |
10 |
> > (experimental being the amd64 and ia64 archs) |
11 |
> |
12 |
> What about packages that do not exist for the "main arch"? I definitely |
13 |
> do not consider ANY arch to be the main one, even though x86 is |
14 |
> definitely the most widely used. In fact, we need to break ourselves |
15 |
> entirely from the idea of a specific arch and work to make as much arch |
16 |
> independent work as possible. Duplication of work sucks... |
17 |
|
18 |
The main arch is just that arch that the arch that the maintainer of said |
19 |
package uses. In this way there is always a main arch for the package. As the |
20 |
maintainer can be assumed to know most about a package it might be better to |
21 |
leave the maintainer to judge the stability of a package. |
22 |
|
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > Actually I would like to be able to download the tree 10 years from now |
25 |
> > and given that the source files are there it should be possible to build |
26 |
> > a gentoo system (NOT SECURE, not all hardware) that is the same to one |
27 |
> > from now. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> I agree completely. I think the idea is to only keep a year. |
30 |
> Personally, I would like to keep the *tree* forever, just only provide |
31 |
> fixes for a year (or however long we decide). |
32 |
|
33 |
That was my idea indeed. |
34 |
|
35 |
Paul |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Paul de Vrieze |
39 |
Gentoo Developer |
40 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
41 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |