From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA5E138247 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:02:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9D175E0AE8; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:02:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65738E0ADA for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:02:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f176.google.com with SMTP id j1so1795840iga.3 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:02:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=a4C76rDNBSllnWihTLUEmQkLochLen19dfe/o6CYHkk=; b=KNeUu8lMJYQnZ869VpaQvpSnNnbqoL9eG15MtkTsVdjeEBw6ApCdvVI0mTWTDdFtzs fmwzf0/sjeg0yjRj90dlhIbhylo6BCKGOjftvjBTU2lfpPlA0Q7GMqUfDg5/7M1tJSDS HCW3qeOZ79e/RURTTpf+egQrMiQEdZoNRn/gbC6uDWKR/EF3qmlGvUY5rGw7f7a6FE1r mrg7FH1GDUZQNCzqGrB9GAbtlxpHe0VG9KtibBBlwYJiB5o47/MqqLiLg0jMYra73P52 wUglN5WNwAAi6KOHTwe0XyqNELj3rWgbQzvqSOsIm152q8jk+Li2iRXjA73rEwr+133v z+OA== 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 X-Received: by 10.50.61.232 with SMTP id t8mr3008684igr.32.1389970929462; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:02:09 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.73.99 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:02:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <52D6715F.8000502@gentoo.org> <20140115153036.GA1433@laptop.home> <52D77990.7060506@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:02:09 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: PhfbRzpkl5uAfPiuzuH-ipUqiV4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 16a1bd5e-42be-40a6-911e-8d6fc5e45428 X-Archives-Hash: 17ddcd295ccd2e8169032959c61c9c5a On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:02 PM, 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? >> > There's been opposition to this in the past, but I'm in favor of > giving this a shot. > I too think it is at least worth a try. We can learn from this either way. Maybe start out leaving it up to maintainer discretion, and if that becomes an issue we can try to formulate guidelines. Rich