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 7C86B1380DC for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 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> <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: 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: 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 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.