| 1 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2011 01:41:54 Arun Raghavan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 7 August 2011 17:20, Raúl Porcel wrote: |
| 3 |
> > With subprofiles we could keyword such packages, mask them globally on |
| 4 |
> > arm and unmask it on the subprofile of the subarchitecture that supports |
| 5 |
> > it. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I think this makes sense. What would the policy be on initial keywords |
| 8 |
> if upstream doesn't explicitly specify what sub-arches are supported? |
| 9 |
> Just enable on all till someone says it doesn't work or test on all of |
| 10 |
> them first or ...? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
we arent talking diff keywords ... there will still be just "arm". the |
| 13 |
simplest approach is probably fine: don't worry about masking unless someone |
| 14 |
complains or the dev in question feels like digging into things. it's not |
| 15 |
like having the package generally available will cause people any additional |
| 16 |
problems ... |
| 17 |
-mike |
Archives