| 1 |
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:57:43 -0600 "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." |
| 2 |
<bss03@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
| > ~arch means a package is a candidate for going into arch after |
| 4 |
| > further testing, if said testing does not turn up new bugs. This |
| 5 |
| > means that both the ebuild *and* the package should be likely to be |
| 6 |
| > stable. |
| 7 |
| |
| 8 |
| So, betas shouldn't ever be ~arch? Or is your definition of stable |
| 9 |
| broad enough to include betas? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Entirely dependent on the upstream. I've had Vim beta releases in |
| 12 |
~arch, for example, because I'm confident in upstream's ability to do |
| 13 |
beta releases without screwing up. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
| > -* means the package is in some way architecture or hardware |
| 16 |
| > independent (e.g. a binary only package), and so will only run on |
| 17 |
| > archs that are explicitly listed. |
| 18 |
| |
| 19 |
| So, I guess glibc-2.3.6-r3.ebuild is using -* incorrectly? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Probably. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
| > Any package setting KEYWORDS="-*" and nothing else is abusing -*, |
| 24 |
| > and will flag a warning on the QA checkers. |
| 25 |
| |
| 26 |
| You mean like gcc-4.1.0_pre20060219.ebuild? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Yyyyup. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The -* abuse is one of the many things on QA's list of "stuff we want |
| 31 |
to get fixed". However, it's considered extremely low priority on |
| 32 |
existing packages. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat) |
| 36 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 37 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives