From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64707-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 7C86B1380DC
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed,  5 Feb 2014 01:35:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2499BE0B07;
	Wed,  5 Feb 2014 01:35:31 +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 435A8E0AD0
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed,  5 Feb 2014 01:35:30 +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 0E0E733EE7F
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed,  5 Feb 2014 01:35:28 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1391564122.3520.4.camel@oswin.hackershack.net>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords
From: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0600
In-Reply-To: <20140205020742.048cef9f@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
References: <52E7DBC1.5020102@gentoo.org>
	 <20140128182304.7d458a17@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net>
	 <CAGfcS_nsbNrSKVpg3TJbRnbRcc5BqL2-aOK1twE7vxv2tZ8sZg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20140203062524.GA7467@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>
	 <20140203104341.2add2760@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
	 <20140204210319.GA1935@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>
	 <20140205010833.1bcf8dca@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
	 <1391559808.3520.2.camel@oswin.hackershack.net>
	 <20140205020742.048cef9f@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
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: af2f3a04-4834-4474-9415-473b02e606b8
X-Archives-Hash: 39f9f214a0847c80daa084e50d9fd61e

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 02:07 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 18:23:28 -0600
> Steev Klimaszewski <steev@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 01:08 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > 
> > > "The -* keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions
> > > which are not worth trying to test on unlisted archs." [1]
> > > 
> > > You can keep rehashing about "winning", but all it does is break
> > > policy.
> > > 
> > >  [1]: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording
> > > 
> > 
> > We are saying it is not for use on any but the listed arch, so don't
> > try to.  No?  Or are we going to hinge this all on the definition of
> > "test" in that statement?
> 
> It has already been tested; and thus, it would be a policy breach to use
> -* over dropping a keyword. It is also worth trying, when man power
> allows; or are we going to hinge on the definition of "worth" as well?
> 
> Looks like we are playing word games; I'll pick one, "unlisted" archs.
> 
> The appropriate way to say that "it is not for use" on a particular
> arch is to mask the package, a less appropriate way which is still
> valid but less appreciated is to remove the keyword; but using the
> wording "not for use" as "not worth trying to test" is bending policy.
> 

Alright, well, I've tried my best, I give up.  Instead of having
something working we should just remove ebuilds of working packages.