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 1N6Xfp-0008QJ-Hb for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:52:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E483E08FF; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr (smtp4-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.4]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C136E08FF for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:52:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34034C8059 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:52:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from [78.236.180.97] (unknown [78.236.180.97]) by smtp4-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E560A4C80BD for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:52:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4AF4A891.3080503@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:52:01 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?UsOpbWkgQ2FyZG9uYQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090915 Thunderbird/3.0b4 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: c4755d63-35f8-4bd0-afd9-c6bf458d9f22 X-Archives-Hash: e96ae876a5cf7737b8f0108ead8b39ad Le 06/11/2009 15:45, Fabian Groffen a =C3=A9crit : > 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? While this is probably a good idea in theory, I can't help but think it=20 won't really help us. For example, in other distros, X11 protocols headers (x11-proto/*) are=20 marked as "noarch" [1]. With the recent mess that happened in X=20 libs/protos, "noarch" is something we'll never be able to use for those=20 packages because the stabilization of "noarch" and "arch" packages need=20 to happen all at the same time. Other distros don't have different=20 package versions across arches. We do... So as far as I'm concerned, "noarch" will be of very limited use to us,=20 maybe a few X cursor themes, that's about it. It's not the kind of=20 packages that get a frequent releases anyway. I just don't see how "noarch" will help the portage tree. However, I would like to see the council get in touch with "problematic"=20 arch teams *more* *often* to see what their status is, and maybe be more=20 proactive when it comes to putting an arch to the dev status. Cheers, R=C3=A9mi [1]=20 http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/xorg-x11-proto-devel/devel/xorg-= x11-proto-devel.spec?view=3Dmarkup