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 1N7K5G-0006Vn-If for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:34:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DAD57E0B1D; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 02:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B307AE0B1D for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 02:34:20 +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 279B867A65 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 02:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4AF77FB8.7010706@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:34:32 -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> <4AF49E3E.30307@gentoo.org> <1257605665.8341.1314.camel@tablet> <4AF5DD57.7050508@gentoo.org> <1257684920.8341.1372.camel@tablet> In-Reply-To: <1257684920.8341.1372.camel@tablet> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 69ae85e9-9e82-4ea0-9cb4-0343866ae144 X-Archives-Hash: 49c2a6d8b4017625bb2b252eb25581cc Peter Volkov wrote: > =D0=92 =D0=A1=D0=B1=D1=82, 07/11/2009 =D0=B2 12:49 -0800, Zac Medico =D0= =BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: >> Peter Volkov wrote: >>>> 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. >>> Looks like this will not work for all noarch packages. Stardict >>> dictionary itself is noarch, but it RDEPENDS on stardict package whic= h >>> is keyworded only on some archs. So we'll be forced either to keyword >>> stardict on all archs or we need to introduce some new way to work wi= th >>> such situations. >> Keywording stardict on all archs doesn't sound reasonable, so I >> guess we just need to make sure that repoman will allow the noarch >> keyword even though the dependencies aren't keyworded on all >> architectures. >=20 > But how will portage handle such situations? Will it allow installation > of noarch package and pull in *DEPEND only if possible, or will it > prohibit installation of noarch pkgs with unsatisfied deps? The latter > will make life harder for tools like eix, I guess. It should prohibit installation if there are unsatisfied deps. If you want "optional" dependencies then that will require a syntax extension with an EAPI bump. --=20 Thanks, Zac