| 1 |
On 9/6/05, Martin Schlemmer <azarah@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> arch - in theory stable |
| 4 |
> ~arch - in theory should work, but needs testing |
| 5 |
> -arch - do not work at all |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Just out of curiosity, why are there know broken packages in portage? |
| 10 |
Wouldn't -arch packages best be handled outside of the official portage tree |
| 11 |
such as a developers overlay? Couldn't the same be said for pmasked also? If |
| 12 |
we were to remove pmasked and -arch packages from portage and and handle |
| 13 |
them via overlays, the portage tree would contain only working versions of |
| 14 |
programs and testing versions of the same program which would be ~arch'd. |
| 15 |
This should should suffice for most users; but If they want to run the |
| 16 |
"broken" programs, they'd download the overlay and install it again. No need |
| 17 |
to add lines to both package.unmask and package.keywors either. Once broken |
| 18 |
package is fixed, it should be moved into portage for testing and then |
| 19 |
finally unarched. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And I apologize in advance if this was brought up before or is just plain |
| 22 |
stupid.. I'm fairly new to Gentoo development list and this is my first |
| 23 |
reply :). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Regards, |
Archives