| 1 |
Le 06/11/2009 15:45, Fabian Groffen a écrit : |
| 2 |
> Sounds like we could benefit from the "noarch" approach known in the RPM |
| 3 |
> world, such that all these packages can also be immediately keyworded |
| 4 |
> and stabilised for all arches. Would greatly simplify things for a |
| 5 |
> great deal of packages, maybe? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
While this is probably a good idea in theory, I can't help but think it |
| 8 |
won't really help us. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
For example, in other distros, X11 protocols headers (x11-proto/*) are |
| 11 |
marked as "noarch" [1]. With the recent mess that happened in X |
| 12 |
libs/protos, "noarch" is something we'll never be able to use for those |
| 13 |
packages because the stabilization of "noarch" and "arch" packages need |
| 14 |
to happen all at the same time. Other distros don't have different |
| 15 |
package versions across arches. We do... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So as far as I'm concerned, "noarch" will be of very limited use to us, |
| 18 |
maybe a few X cursor themes, that's about it. It's not the kind of |
| 19 |
packages that get a frequent releases anyway. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I just don't see how "noarch" will help the portage tree. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
However, I would like to see the council get in touch with "problematic" |
| 24 |
arch teams *more* *often* to see what their status is, and maybe be more |
| 25 |
proactive when it comes to putting an arch to the dev status. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Cheers, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Rémi |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
[1] |
| 32 |
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/xorg-x11-proto-devel/devel/xorg-x11-proto-devel.spec?view=markup |
Archives