From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-38384-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1N6fdR-0001jn-ML
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:22:57 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E2BB2E084A;
	Sat,  7 Nov 2009 07:22:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A58E084A
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat,  7 Nov 2009 07:22:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (graaff.xs4all.nl [80.101.101.38])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D973B66A53
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat,  7 Nov 2009 07:22:54 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
From: Hans de Graaff <graaff@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <4AF4A891.3080503@gentoo.org>
References: <200911011736.38401.Arfrever@gentoo.org>
	 <20091102151707.0b155aab@gentoo.org>
	 <200911021724.01069.hwoarang@gentoo.org>
	 <20091103191005.18d98e2e@gentoo.org>
	 <e117dbb90911040436h249ce099s1bd09367b932f1bb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4AF1EBD8.4020502@gentoo.org> <20091104214823.64842abd@gentoo.org>
	 <20091105091700.GA17478@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <4AF331B0.4020108@gentoo.org>
	 <8b4c83ad0911060618r2b61c4b4w51238306b9c9a437@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20091106144535.GT1150@gentoo.org>  <4AF4A891.3080503@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-FVrP5zHqDmN7bAph6g4G"
Organization: Gentoo
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:22:51 +0100
Message-ID: <1257578571.1532.21.camel@localhost>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 
X-Archives-Salt: 64f66220-4ed3-4aa4-87d8-0202b1b651b1
X-Archives-Hash: 3af83f67b0912d47ac3cbf782e925fbf


--=-FVrP5zHqDmN7bAph6g4G
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 23:52 +0100, R=C3=A9mi Cardona wrote:

> I just don't see how "noarch" will help the portage tree.

I would propose to use it for the 100+ app-xemacs packages, all of which
run within the virtual machine that is xemacs. Obviously
app-editors/xemacs, the editor itself, will still be keyworded for each
arch, but the chance of running into arch-specific issues with the
packages is very small, and they are released independently from the
editor.

The same thing may apply to a number of dev-ruby/* packages (those
installing only ruby code), but that would need per-package
investigation.

Hans

--=-FVrP5zHqDmN7bAph6g4G
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEUEABECAAYFAkr1IEsACgkQVYU2Ai8K93fuaQCWM+zzZd8Lytrhvw1G+5U4V6jk
XQCgi3NgZlEbxx1eSqcAYLLUTZEO0AE=
=SDvY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-FVrP5zHqDmN7bAph6g4G--