| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:11:39PM +0100, Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Yes you are! That said we could always mark a specific ebuild -arch if |
| 5 |
> it doesnt work there. I think such a system is the only way manage a |
| 6 |
> large number of architectures. Debian might have many evils, but they |
| 7 |
> support alternate architectures much better than we do. Have you tried |
| 8 |
> installing gentoo on sparc recently without ~sparc (which breaks lots of |
| 9 |
> stuff)? And not even mentionning stuff like ia64 or alpha... And its |
| 10 |
> only going to get worse if we add more. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
ia64 is unreleased and doesn't matter as far as installability goes |
| 14 |
right now. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If something is wrong with sparc/alpha, it's an issue with those teams, |
| 17 |
not with the keywords implementation. A keywords-style system means we |
| 18 |
can have the best application for each arch on that arch; your suggested |
| 19 |
system means that we'd be looking for consistency between versions |
| 20 |
rather than attempting to make sure users get the most appropriate version. And |
| 21 |
ask the Debian folks how well the "apps must work on each supported |
| 22 |
platform" criteria is working out for them. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 26 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives