| 1 |
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 21:11, Jason Wever wrote: |
| 2 |
> Is there a written policy anyway for the behavior of carrying KEYWORDS |
| 3 |
> over from one version of an ebuild for a given package to another? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I wouldn't be able to point you to it, but I can swear I read somewhere |
| 6 |
on g.o that it was acceptable to KEYWORD a new version of a package as |
| 7 |
~arch if the previous version of that package was arch or ~arch. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> I've noticed in my wanderings though the portage tree forest that often |
| 10 |
> times keywords have a habit of disappearing without notice between |
| 11 |
> versions , and having a policy or guideline *shudder* to help establish |
| 12 |
> guidelines for this behavior (if one doesn't already exist). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
At the same time, I've heard that we should never KEYWORD *anything* |
| 15 |
which we cannot test for ourselves. This has been my general way of |
| 16 |
doing things. When I commit a new version of a package, I only KEYWORD |
| 17 |
it for the arches I can test for, then I send a test request to the |
| 18 |
remaining arches. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Which is the preferred method? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
While the first could possibly introduce packages that are broken for a |
| 23 |
specific arch, the second also adds to the problem of alternative arches |
| 24 |
being behind the base (x86, here) arch many times, and also lends to |
| 25 |
packages disappearing as they get older ebuilds cleaned up. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 29 |
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager |
| 30 |
Games - Developer |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |
Archives