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 ) id 1N6WyR-0003nJ-SE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:08:04 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C74AEE0857; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:08:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1FAE0857 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:08:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.22.10] (ip68-4-152-120.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.152.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0314867BCC for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:08:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4AF49E3E.30307@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:07:58 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090907) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations References: <200911011736.38401.Arfrever@gentoo.org> <20091102151707.0b155aab@gentoo.org> <200911021724.01069.hwoarang@gentoo.org> <20091103191005.18d98e2e@gentoo.org> <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> In-Reply-To: <20091106144535.GT1150@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 0b6e5db7-96fb-41b0-9c2a-70ae7287285f X-Archives-Hash: 74566dc6603b801c266d4a1d4a577d10 Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 06-11-2009 19:48:16 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Petteri R=C3=A4ty wrote: >>> In the past when smaller arches were not that active we used to mark >>> Java packages stable after testing by at least one arch team. The >>> probability to find arch specific issues in something like Java is no= t >>> so high so I think arrangements like this are acceptable when the arc= h >>> teams have problems keeping up. >> I think the same should be extended to other languages such as Perl >> and Python (unless they have portions which are C/C++) >=20 > Sounds like we could benefit from the "noarch" approach known in the RP= M > world, such that all these packages can also be immediately keyworded > and stabilised for all arches. Would greatly simplify things for a > great deal of packages, maybe? 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 Thanks, Zac