* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
@ 2014-01-17 17:08 99% ` grozin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: grozin @ 2014-01-17 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:31:54 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, grozin wrote:
>>> Maybe, a good solution is to introduce a special arch, "noarch", for
>>> such packages (similar to what's done in the rpm world). Then, if a
>>> package is ~noarch, it is automatically considered ~arch for all
>>> arches. Similar for stable. The maintainer should be able to keyword
>>> ~noarch and to stabilize noarch. Comments?
>>
>> How would you handle dependencies in such a scenario? All dependencies
>> must be keyworded or stable on all architectures, before the package
>> can be keyworded or stabilised on noarch?
>
> Maybe we can let the package managers only perceive it as keyworded or
> stable if all of its dependencies are keyworded or stable on the
> architecture that the user runs. Then we can have repoman just ignore
> checking dependencies' keywords when we keyword or stabilize them.
Very reasonable.
Andrey
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2014-01-14 21:37 [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy William Hubbs
2014-01-15 11:30 ` Sergey Popov
2014-01-15 15:30 ` William Hubbs
2014-01-16 6:17 ` Sergey Popov
2014-01-17 6:06 ` grozin
2014-01-17 7:02 ` grozin
2014-01-17 15:31 ` Ulrich Mueller
2014-01-17 16:47 ` Tom Wijsman
2014-01-17 17:08 99% ` grozin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox