| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 07:12:08PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 12:47 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 |
| 6 |
> > > > support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own |
| 7 |
> > > > thread. |
| 8 |
> > > > |
| 9 |
> > > > How often do architecture specific bugs really exist in languages like |
| 10 |
> > > > perl, python etc? From what I've seen they are pretty rare. Not to mention, |
| 11 |
> > > > if we found one somewhere, we could adjust keywords as necessary. |
| 12 |
> > > > |
| 13 |
> > > > Also, if someone did inadvertently keyword a package with noarch that didn't |
| 14 |
> > > > work everywhere, it would be a matter of adjusting the keywords for that |
| 15 |
> > > > package. |
| 16 |
> > > > |
| 17 |
> > > > So, my question is, why can't we add a noarch/~noarch keyword and see |
| 18 |
> > > > how things go? If it gets abused we can always nuke it later. |
| 19 |
> > > > |
| 20 |
> > > |
| 21 |
> > > 1. How is this going to work when noarch package depends on non-nonarch |
| 22 |
> > > package? I mean, will all the package managers actually work? Have you |
| 23 |
> > > did some minimal testing before bringing this up? |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > Can you have multiple ACCEPT_KEYWORDS values in make.conf or |
| 26 |
> > make.defaults like this? |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="amd64 noarch" |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > If so, things should just work. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > Currently I don't know of any arch/package combos to test this with. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> I'm talking about repoman/pkgcheck. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
See my response to chewi about this part. I have no idea how |
| 37 |
much work would be involved in making this work. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> > > 2. Who will be responsible for handling noarch stablereqs? Will there |
| 41 |
> > > be a noarch arch team? |
| 42 |
> > |
| 43 |
> > The maintainer would be able to add the "~noarch" keyword. I'm not sure |
| 44 |
> > there needs to be a noarch arch team. We could just say that all arch |
| 45 |
> > team members can stabilize these or maybe the maintainers can afterh the |
| 46 |
> > timeout. |
| 47 |
> > |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> Would you CC all arch teams on the bug then? |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> We have ALLARCHES already, and to my experience most arch teams fail to |
| 52 |
> handle that. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
There would be no need to cc all arches on the bug, just make noarch@g.o |
| 55 |
an alias that emails to all arch teams. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Thanks, |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
William |
Archives