| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 |
| 4 |
> > support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own |
| 5 |
> > thread. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > How often do architecture specific bugs really exist in languages like |
| 8 |
> > perl, python etc? From what I've seen they are pretty rare. Not to mention, |
| 9 |
> > if we found one somewhere, we could adjust keywords as necessary. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Also, if someone did inadvertently keyword a package with noarch that didn't |
| 12 |
> > work everywhere, it would be a matter of adjusting the keywords for that |
| 13 |
> > package. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > So, my question is, why can't we add a noarch/~noarch keyword and see |
| 16 |
> > how things go? If it gets abused we can always nuke it later. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> 1. How is this going to work when noarch package depends on non-nonarch |
| 20 |
> package? I mean, will all the package managers actually work? Have you |
| 21 |
> did some minimal testing before bringing this up? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Can you have multiple ACCEPT_KEYWORDS values in make.conf or |
| 24 |
make.defaults like this? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="amd64 noarch" |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If so, things should just work. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Currently I don't know of any arch/package combos to test this with. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> 2. Who will be responsible for handling noarch stablereqs? Will there |
| 33 |
> be a noarch arch team? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
The maintainer would be able to add the "~noarch" keyword. I'm not sure |
| 36 |
there needs to be a noarch arch team. We could just say that all arch |
| 37 |
team members can stabilize these or maybe the maintainers can afterh the |
| 38 |
timeout. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
William |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> -- |
| 43 |
> Best regards, |
| 44 |
> Michał Górny |
| 45 |
> |
Archives