| 1 |
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 16:28, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> I still think that the concept of a "maintainer arch" is completely |
| 3 |
> broken anyway. I like the idea of adding something like a "maint" |
| 4 |
> KEYWORD, or something similar to mark that the ebuild is considered |
| 5 |
> "stable" material by the maintainer. We can't rely on the maintainer |
| 6 |
> using *any* arch as their main architecture. Take myself, as an |
| 7 |
> example. The architecture I use when doing maintenance and adding new |
| 8 |
> packages is just whatever machine I happen to be using. It could be |
| 9 |
> x86, amd64, ppc, hppa, sparc, or mips, and there's no rhyme nor reason |
| 10 |
> to which I am using at any point in time. This is becoming a more |
| 11 |
> common occurrence that our developers have machines across many |
| 12 |
> architectures. Personally, I don't think this should be an added |
| 13 |
> KEYWORD, so much as a variable within the ebuild. I'd hate to start |
| 14 |
> seeing users filing bugs using "maint" as their "arch" or adding maint |
| 15 |
> to their USE flags. Just remember that if it is possible, somebody will |
| 16 |
> do it... ;] |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think those silly users could be handled similarly as those who use |
| 19 |
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="*" or similar. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Paul |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 25 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 26 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 27 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives