From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64505-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CC4138247
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:27:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 56264E0D07;
	Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:27:53 +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 6F932E0C6B
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:27:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.11.20] (cpe-72-177-217-176.satx.res.rr.com [72.177.217.176])
	(using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: steev)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4531A33F972
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:27:51 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1390245928.14914.6.camel@oswin.hackershack.net>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add a KEYWORD representing any arch
From: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:25:28 -0600
In-Reply-To: <21211.40692.574361.53989@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.03.1401171248170.24079@star.inp.nsk.su>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.03.1401171358360.3646@star.inp.nsk.su>
	 <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: <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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 1704cfa6-c974-4f2f-bbd8-404b853012dc
X-Archives-Hash: a536338471420bd062cc75fdd74a1a0a

On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 10:46 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> 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.
> 

When they have machines that cover all architectures - assuming there is
some sort of machine code at all.  Otherwise, why even bother having
stable keywords?  Everyone keeps going on about how they will
potentially have issues because something old is stable - I've thrown
out that maybe we should (after a certain amount of time - when cleaning
maybe?) remove all keywords except the only stable one, and then leaving
it up to the slow arches.  

I know what the dev manual says, but I'd much rather have an old ebuild
that's KEYWORDS="-* arm" than have that ebuild removed because a new one
is KEYWORDS="arm" that doesn't work at all. Everyone else keeps talking
in the theoretical, and I'm talking an actual issue.  This affects me
and my workflow and ask ryao about how he wanted to emerge git-9999 to
look into fixing it...


-- steev