| 1 |
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:58:39 +0100 |
| 2 |
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Hi all, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Right now we have arches maintaining a stable keyword and we have |
| 8 |
> arches that don't do that. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This makes me think that the classification of profiles as "exp", |
| 11 |
> "dev", "stable" in profiles.desc does not really cover all usecases. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> [Current meaning: |
| 14 |
> "stable" - repoman checks it, arch has stable keyword |
| 15 |
> "dev" - repoman checks it with -d |
| 16 |
> "exp" - repoman ignores it] |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I'd like to propose two additional profile types: |
| 19 |
> "nonstable" - repoman checks it, arch has no stable keyword (and if |
| 20 |
> there is one in an ebuild, repoman treats it as arch=~arch) |
| 21 |
> "dev-nonstable" - repoman checks it with -d, arch has no stable |
| 22 |
> keyword (and if there is one in an ebuild, repoman treats it as |
| 23 |
> arch=~arch) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
+1 |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
(dev-nonstable isnt really appealing as history has proved that nobody |
| 28 |
dares to check deptree for dev/exp profiles) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> Why not make it possible to keep an ~arch only deptree consistent?! |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
it is possible, there's just a lot of confusion around it :) |
| 33 |
this "cosmetic" change should really help in avoiding this confusion |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Alexis. |
Archives