On 21 August 2013 20:10, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:03:30 +0100 > Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 21 August 2013 19:28, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > >> > Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in >> > between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the >> > leaf and less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of >> > sparc keywords on sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones >> > because at some point (~10 years ago) some dev was interested in >> > these on this architecture but I'm pretty sure nobody uses them. >> > >> > In short: Reduce stable coverage to reduce the workload. >> > >> > Also, from what I've seen in the thread, you are talking about >> > keywords only, right ? Do these arches keep their stable mark in >> > profiles.desc? >> > >> >> I am not familiar with portage internals to understand what >> implications will an ~arch only architecture have if marked as stable. >> Is there a good reason for that? > > Oh yes: Forbid broken deptree. > > x86-fbsd has always been dev profile + ~arch only. It is almost > impossible to move it to stable profile since people (almost) never run > 'repoman -d' and even less file bugs when they introduce broken deps. > It is common to have portage bail out when updating your system because > someone introduced a broken dep and didnt pay attention. > > amd64-fbsd is stable profile + ~arch only. People do it the correct > way, which is: drop keywords, file a bug. Since we do not have a huge > tree coverage here, I get about 5 such bugs a months, which are not hard > to handle. >
Ah, I have no strong preference then. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
