On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:00:30 +0100 "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote:
> 'unstable' should surely be applied to masked packages, no? Everything
> not-stable and not-unstable becomes therefore 'testing' ...
Nah, he's trying to make the phrase "stable arch" mean something
in a way tools can understand.
Because we currently have stable arches as a concept, but as far
as portage is concerned, we only have stable *profiles*, but we can
only identify specific profiles with arches ... which means ...
We can't have a value of ~arch that we can test without also
implying the experimental profiles of that arch that don't matter.
Hence,
stable - what it currently means
testing - for architectures where there will be no promises
beyond "Somebody tested it once" and a 'stable' KEYWORD
value does not mean anything more than a '~' KEYWORD value.
Where the objective is to make sure at least for an architecture
developers should spend effort to keep that keywording in place,
but not ever bother with stabilizing.
unstable - This architecture is so undermaintained that no encouragement
is made of developers to keep keywords consistent, and they can be
freely
ignored.
This is why I preferred alternative wording that was descriptive of what
its doing instead of so obscure and generic and over-conflated.
keyword-consistency=literal-match # 'stable'
keyword-consistency=mixed # 'testing'
keyword-consistency=none # 'unstable'
Or something along those lines.
pgp3zeIh_1EHJ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
