[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Reminder: ALLARCHES
From:       Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm () gmail ! com>
Date:       2016-05-02 14:58:39
Message-ID: 112481953.JFJUYNVNl1 () liwardyna
[Download RAW message or body]


On Monday 02 of May 2016 16:43:01 you wrote:
| On Saturday 30 of April 2016 23:16:42 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
| | Hi all,
| | 
| | just as a small reminder, to ease the load on all arch teams:
| | 
| | If a stablerequest has the keyword ALLARCHES set, then
| | * the first arch that tests successfully and stabilizes
| | * can and *should* immediately stabilize for all requested arches!
| | 
| | Whether this keyword is set on a bug is decision of the package
| | maintainer.
| | 
| | For example, Perl team sets ALLARCHES normall for all pure-perl packages
| | (i.e., no compilation / gcc involved).
| | 
| | Here's an example how this was used:
| | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=578408
| | https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=44c2d31dfc61bb3e2aee3
| | 70 9cb5a784b213511fa
| 
| Going further, perhaps introducing something along the lines of 'noarch' to
| KEYWORDS syntax would solve the problem in long run?
| Or do we really need to have fine grained control over packages visibility
| even for those that are really processor architecture agnostic?

Yes, subject was discussed:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/63776/match=noarch
or 
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/89824/match=noarch

but I perhaps it's worth re-revisiting since it's hard to find definitive 
conclusion to those topics.

regards
MM
["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]