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 ) id 1N77Hf-0007jW-5y for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:54:19 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B5A98E0949; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:54:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E524E0949 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:54:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.35] (unknown [77.246.104.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58852672A6 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:54:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations From: Peter Volkov To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20091108090548.GG1150@gentoo.org> References: <20091103191005.18d98e2e@gentoo.org> <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> <4AF49E3E.30307@gentoo.org> <1257605665.8341.1314.camel@tablet> <20091108090548.GG1150@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:53:21 +0300 Message-ID: <1257684801.8341.1369.camel@tablet> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: ab356b6d-312f-44e7-8cf7-44cb396245a4 X-Archives-Hash: 8b44119a00680a8f50daf4038bd90df1 =D0=92 =D0=92=D1=81=D0=BA, 08/11/2009 =D0=B2 10:05 +0100, Fabian Groffen = =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > On 07-11-2009 17:54:25 +0300, Peter Volkov wrote: > > > We could introduce "noarch" and "~noarch" KEYWORDS, add "noarch" to > > > the default ACCEPT_KEYWORDS setting for all profiles, and instruct > > > unstable users to add "~noarch" to ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. > >=20 > > Looks like this will not work for all noarch packages. Stardict > > dictionary itself is noarch, but it RDEPENDS on stardict package whic= h > > is keyworded only on some archs. So we'll be forced either to keyword > > stardict on all archs or we need to introduce some new way to work wi= th > > such situations. >=20 > Would it be reasonable to just mask in such case? Resolution would > eventually just hit the masked stardict dictionary and display the > reason why it's masked (stardict doesn't compile, not yet looked into > keywording: please try, etc.) As I understand: absense of ~arch keyword means package is masked on ~arch since nobody yet looked at this package. I was asking here: since noarch is allowed on all archs, how this noarch over arch KEYWORD stacking may work? --=20 Peter.