| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I'd be in support. Especially for "data only" kind of packages, like: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
net-misc/asterisk-moh-opsound |
| 6 |
net-misc/asterisk-extra-sounds |
| 7 |
net-misc/asterisk-core-sounds |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
For all three these I've already dropped the DEPEND on net-misc/asterisk |
| 10 |
anyway, and upgraded the PDEPEND on net-misc/asterisk back onto these to |
| 11 |
RDEPEND. Other than that they really only install a bunch of audio |
| 12 |
files in various formats. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
One could even mark the various acct-{user,group}/* packages this way |
| 15 |
(although this is a simple eclass change). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
One challenge I foresee is that one could have a perl, python or php |
| 18 |
(script language of choice) package depend on a specific version of |
| 19 |
interpreter, which may not be stable for given arch. So may require |
| 20 |
some special handling in terms of dependencies. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Kind Regards, |
| 23 |
Jaco |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
On 2020/03/18 16:54, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 27 |
> All, |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 |
| 30 |
> support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own |
| 31 |
> thread. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> How often do architecture specific bugs really exist in languages like |
| 34 |
> perl, python etc? From what I've seen they are pretty rare. Not to mention, |
| 35 |
> if we found one somewhere, we could adjust keywords as necessary. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Also, if someone did inadvertently keyword a package with noarch that didn't |
| 38 |
> work everywhere, it would be a matter of adjusting the keywords for that |
| 39 |
> package. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> So, my question is, why can't we add a noarch/~noarch keyword and see |
| 42 |
> how things go? If it gets abused we can always nuke it later. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Thanks, |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> William |
| 47 |
> |
Archives