Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Rémi Cardona" <remi@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:52:53
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations by Fabian Groffen
Le 06/11/2009 15:45, Fabian Groffen a écrit :
> Sounds like we could benefit from the "noarch" approach known in the RPM > world, such that all these packages can also be immediately keyworded > and stabilised for all arches. Would greatly simplify things for a > great deal of packages, maybe?
While this is probably a good idea in theory, I can't help but think it won't really help us. For example, in other distros, X11 protocols headers (x11-proto/*) are marked as "noarch" [1]. With the recent mess that happened in X libs/protos, "noarch" is something we'll never be able to use for those packages because the stabilization of "noarch" and "arch" packages need to happen all at the same time. Other distros don't have different package versions across arches. We do... So as far as I'm concerned, "noarch" will be of very limited use to us, maybe a few X cursor themes, that's about it. It's not the kind of packages that get a frequent releases anyway. I just don't see how "noarch" will help the portage tree. However, I would like to see the council get in touch with "problematic" arch teams *more* *often* to see what their status is, and maybe be more proactive when it comes to putting an arch to the dev status. Cheers, Rémi [1]


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations Hans de Graaff <graaff@g.o>