Matt Turner posted on Fri, 20 May 2016 21:47:56 -0700 as excerpted: > He's saying people add new packages and then speculatively add keywords > for a bunch of architectures that they haven't tested. This causes > unnecessary packages to be keyworded on archs that don't want them and > can hardly afford the extra load.
I can even visualize the argument in support, too. "Well, the package is known to work on that arch on Fedora..." That may be, but has the package been actually tested to work on that arch within the gentoo context, and is it likely to be practical for the minor arch to continue to support? It's not a question of whether it worked on fedora or not. It's a question of whether it has been tested on gentoo or not, and whether that arch's users on gentoo find it useful enough to be worth the trouble to maintain over time and other software changes on that arch. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
