| 1 |
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:02:27PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2014-01-17, o godz. 14:02:51 |
| 3 |
> grozin@g.o napisał(a): |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Maybe, a good solution is to introduce a special arch, "noarch", for such |
| 6 |
> > packages (similar to what's done in the rpm world). Then, if a package is |
| 7 |
> > ~noarch, it is automatically considered ~arch for all arches. Similar for |
| 8 |
> > stable. The maintainer should be able to keyword ~noarch and to stabilize |
| 9 |
> > noarch. Comments? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If you want to play with such a major change, you should start a new |
| 12 |
> thread instead of starting it in the middle of this spam-art. |
| 13 |
> Otherwise, many people will miss it and complain loudly afterwards. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I am going to agree with mgorny on this; highjacking this thread with |
| 16 |
this change is not appropriate; all we were doing in this thread is |
| 17 |
trying to figure out a way to improve our stabilization policy. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Introducing a "noarch" keyword should be discussed in a completely |
| 20 |
separate thread. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
William |
Archives