On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:16:43 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:10:23 +0100 > Tom Wijsman <tom...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > As detailed before, -* has a different meaning defined by policy; if > > we want to see that changed it should be brought up for a vote, > > otherwise its usage in discussions like these seems to suggest to > > break an existing policy. So, I read this as "arch" whenever it is > > brought up. > > You would have to do this across an EAPI, since it's a change that > matters to the package mangler. Right now, if a -* is there, the > package mangler shouldn't suggest changing accepted keywords for that > package if it's suggesting how to deal with an unsatisfiable > resolution. +1, in that case changing to ** indeed would be harmful; because -* denotes that the package has been tested not to work, so suggesting ** would be a waste of time. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
