From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent to need to change all keywords at the same time
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:23:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_mp+yFysTL9t8b4bXhV+eDy3hpabjg1foEtzxfOwVtTCw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53C7D916.2040709@gentoo.org>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 17/07/14 08:28 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> I recently noticed this:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=502836
>>
>> imlib2 ebuild can only be stabilized in one round for all arches
>> as KEYWORDS are set in eclass depending on E_STATE="release". That
>> has an important drawback as forces all arches to be done at the
>> same time and, since some are much slower than others, forces all
>> to wait for them. And, as that can depend on even more
>> stabilizations (like it's the case) all that bugs blocking the
>> stabilization need to also be done for *all* arches before.
>>
>> I am not sure if any policy exists for this, but I would forbid to
>> make this due this issue. I would instead move to use KEYWORDS en
>> ebuild as done usually.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>
> Unless there is some sort of need to synchronize stable keywords
> across multiple packages in an identical fashion, that is -so
> important- it can't be left to AT's and maintainers to ensure the
> stablereq bugs are filed across them all at once on their own, I don't
> see a reason for setting KEYWORDS in an eclass.
>
> So, +1 for moving KEYWORDS to ebuilds. I'm not sure if "forbidding"
> is necessary, as I think strongly discouraging all overly-complicated
> solutions like this one would suffice. (and yes i know the irony of
> this statement given that I'm in the gx86-multilib project :)
+1000
I think that sticking KEYWORDS in an eclass is something that should
probably never happen. That isn't to say that it can't happen if
there is some really important reason, but I can see it creating a
number of issues.
If for some reason we have a collection of packages that need to be
synchronized WITHIN an arch I think we should think about ways to make
this easier, but this probably isn't the way to do it.
Rich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-17 14:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-17 12:28 [gentoo-dev] Prevent to need to change all keywords at the same time Pacho Ramos
2014-07-17 13:50 ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2014-07-17 14:09 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2014-07-17 14:23 ` Rich Freeman [this message]
2014-07-17 16:03 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2014-07-17 18:28 ` Pacho Ramos
2014-07-17 18:33 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2014-07-17 18:56 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2014-07-17 20:40 ` Rich Freeman
2014-07-17 20:44 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2014-07-17 20:52 ` Rich Freeman
2014-07-18 10:09 ` Samuli Suominen
2014-07-17 18:45 ` Ulrich Mueller
2014-07-17 21:14 ` Thomas Sachau
2014-07-17 21:20 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2014-07-18 8:14 ` Pacho Ramos
2014-07-19 13:35 ` Thomas Sachau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAGfcS_mp+yFysTL9t8b4bXhV+eDy3hpabjg1foEtzxfOwVtTCw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=rich0@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox