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-38412-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun,  8 Nov 2009 12:56:14 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
From: Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org>
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>
	 <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>  <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: <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 
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.