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 1N77K3-00087m-8m for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:56:47 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A9557E09CE; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:56:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89198E09CE for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:56:16 +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 2AD52652D5 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:56:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations From: Peter Volkov To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4AF5DD57.7050508@gentoo.org> References: <200911011736.38401.Arfrever@gentoo.org> <20091102151707.0b155aab@gentoo.org> <200911021724.01069.hwoarang@gentoo.org> <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> <4AF5DD57.7050508@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:55:20 +0300 Message-ID: <1257684920.8341.1372.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: f70abbfd-c245-4082-9813-62349929fa89 X-Archives-Hash: 89aebb8b11d7b4702cd08261d826a013 =D0=92 =D0=A1=D0=B1=D1=82, 07/11/2009 =D0=B2 12:49 -0800, Zac Medico =D0=BF= =D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > 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 > Keywording stardict on all archs doesn't sound reasonable, so I > guess we just need to make sure that repoman will allow the noarch > keyword even though the dependencies aren't keyworded on all > architectures. But how will portage handle such situations? Will it allow installation of noarch package and pull in *DEPEND only if possible, or will it prohibit installation of noarch pkgs with unsatisfied deps? The latter will make life harder for tools like eix, I guess. --=20 Peter.