From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ECmKY-0007f0-1I for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:54:19 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j86MoEUr020017; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 22:50:14 GMT Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.205]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j86MmR5M008579 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 22:48:28 GMT Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i25so709059wra for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:51:51 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=ppry77lCsJJx53huw5TqTFn6Am9ZzsKTksEEDknO9/WKEhqxnqfKy0whU0uUPGFvosvD9idm12S2bbF11/kWJCfMRWokVJduHioZj5Ta+RGGz3gV9QbL1pUdVNNVNJ7gdAYCIEypm8Ruuh7V++2GJTSEhH8q1UJ4VzofvtumKi4= Received: by 10.54.5.74 with SMTP id 74mr4729556wre; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:51:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.71.10 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:51:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <82e55463050906155176217954@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:51:51 -0400 From: Dave Shanker To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep In-Reply-To: <1126041584.30327.42.camel@lycan.lan> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_11516_31999120.1126047111350" References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <20050904210535.24ab8a39@snowdrop.home> <1125865598.11360.122.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904205307.GG23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125869984.11364.143.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050906152209.GA9825@gentoo.org> <1126034976.10430.3.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <431DEF83.6070701@gentoo.org> <20050906204747.60753c4e@snowdrop.home> <1126041584.30327.42.camel@lycan.lan> X-Archives-Salt: 7528b6cd-1bc4-4987-82ec-f7781155dcc0 X-Archives-Hash: a1770a7258f3d19f826a5cc41a2d7966 ------=_Part_11516_31999120.1126047111350 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 9/6/05, Martin Schlemmer wrote: >=20 > arch - in theory stable > ~arch - in theory should work, but needs testing > -arch - do not work at all Just out of curiosity, why are there know broken packages in portage?=20 Wouldn't -arch packages best be handled outside of the official portage tre= e=20 such as a developers overlay? Couldn't the same be said for pmasked also? I= f=20 we were to remove pmasked and -arch packages from portage and and handle=20 them via overlays, the portage tree would contain only working versions of= =20 programs and testing versions of the same program which would be ~arch'd.= =20 This should should suffice for most users; but If they want to run the=20 "broken" programs, they'd download the overlay and install it again. No nee= d=20 to add lines to both package.unmask and package.keywors either. Once broken= =20 package is fixed, it should be moved into portage for testing and then=20 finally unarched. And I apologize in advance if this was brought up before or is just plain= =20 stupid.. I'm fairly new to Gentoo development list and this is my first=20 reply :). Regards, ------=_Part_11516_31999120.1126047111350 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 9/6/05, Martin Schlemmer <azarah@gentoo.org> wrote:
arch  - in theory stable
~arch - in theory should work, but n= eeds testing
-arch - do not work at all


Just out of curiosity, why are there know broken packages in portage? Wouldn't -arch packages best be handled outside of the official portage tree such as a developers overlay? Couldn't the same be said for pmasked also? If we were to remove pmasked and -arch packages from portage and  and handle them via overlays, the portage tree would contain only working versions of programs and testing versions of the same program which would be ~arch'd. This should should suffice for most users; but If they want to run the "broken" programs, they'd download the overl= ay and install it again. No need to add lines to both package.unmask and package.keywors either. Once broken package is fixed, it should be moved into portage for testing and then finally unarched.

And I apologize in advance if this was brought up before or is just plain stupid.. I'm fairly new to Gentoo development list and this is my first reply :).

Regards,

------=_Part_11516_31999120.1126047111350-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list