| 1 |
On Fri, 20 May 2016 16:00:02 +0200 |
| 2 |
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, 19 May 2016 18:36:22 -0700 |
| 5 |
> Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > To make sure I understand what you're getting at, are you saying |
| 8 |
> > some devs get on board and then request to add keywords to packages |
| 9 |
> > that they already maintain? If said arches are already supported in |
| 10 |
> > Gentoo I see little problem with that, especially if they intend on |
| 11 |
> > being part of the arch testing team for that arch or have access to |
| 12 |
> > the hardware. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I am not talking about adding architecture keywords to profiles/. |
| 15 |
> I am talking about adding architecture keywords to ebuilds. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Regards, |
| 19 |
> jer |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Firstly I think previous replies have been de-railed on talking about |
| 23 |
new alternate arches, which personally I think is the last thing we |
| 24 |
need. If there is any confusion it is because the term keyword, like |
| 25 |
most terms in I.T. gets pushed and pulled and stretched until it breaks. |
| 26 |
To my understanding, KEYWORDS are arches. But being told to 'keyword' a |
| 27 |
package could mean perhaps, well, Hu knows. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Supporting users doing just this lately, I have come across this a few |
| 30 |
times. Users and new devs are expected to be very ignorant of minor |
| 31 |
arches, and despite having docs already informing them that they are |
| 32 |
short staffed and have enough to do, the practicalities of how and why |
| 33 |
to keyword request or not are still veiled in mystery. Users want to |
| 34 |
keyword according to what they see supported upstream just because |
| 35 |
they can. They appear to need it made manually clear to them that there |
| 36 |
are qualifiers and conditions for putting something up for keywording. |
| 37 |
These also I believe are as much as mystery to users as they are to |
| 38 |
devs. |
| 39 |
How to establish a level of desire form userland to have gentoo |
| 40 |
support the arch in the package?? |
| 41 |
How to establish sane rationale for it being put up for stable?? |
| 42 |
The last I heard was along the lines of, well, only put it up if it has |
| 43 |
already been put up in the past.(someone in the past had a check list?) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
If anyone, the members of the arch teams might have some insights based |
| 46 |
upon first hand dealing with packages and their categories. Frankly, |
| 47 |
how you can expect or achieve users and new devs to assess these is |
| 48 |
more the issue, and I do not see there is any obvious path of becoming |
| 49 |
informed of the interest of an invisible audience; userland |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Hu knows |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
kind regards |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Ian Delaney |
Archives