From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77FEA138247 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:15:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 707FFE0C4E; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:15:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7805FE0ADC for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:15:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (182.Red-2-137-18.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.18.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2554733F848 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:15:47 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1390126545.24148.139.camel@belkin5> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add a KEYWORD representing any arch From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:15:45 +0100 In-Reply-To: <21211.40692.574361.53989@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <201401190336.10465.vapier@gentoo.org> <1390123713.24148.121.camel@belkin5> <21211.40692.574361.53989@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 7347fb97-0fae-4fb2-bd60-d879b9172261 X-Archives-Hash: 86e7a5dc5882546e72a9d49a4469e4d4 El dom, 19-01-2014 a las 10:46 +0100, Ulrich Mueller escribió: > >>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > El dom, 19-01-2014 a las 03:36 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió: > >> you mean * ? this already works today (at least with portage): > >> KEYWORDS="~*" > >> KEYWORDS="*" > > Currently not allowed by policy: > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html > > > I had no idea that existed :O, I guess something related with > > "specification" is missing? :/ > > Now what problem are we trying to solve? As I see it, it is mainly > one of manpower, namely that some arch teams cannot keep up with > stable requests, and I doubt that any technical solution will help > to solve this. Introducing a "noarch" keyword or allowing "*" will > potentially cause problems with dependency resolution. > > Instead, we should come up with a clear set of rules under what > circumstances package maintainers are allowed to stabilise ebuilds > themselves on all architectures. > > Ulrich Yeah, the problem is manpower and, then, we are thinking in cases like wallpapers, changes in the installation of some files (that are not arch specific)... But, how to indicate a concrete package can be handled in this special "noarch" way? It's easy for some cases like I posted, but there are others that are more difficult to handle (perl modules for example?) If we could agree on the kind of packages we could handle in this way (stabilizing for all arches) would be nice