On 14:17 Wed 16 Feb , Tobias Klausmann wrote: > Hi! > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > On 09:10 Tue 15 Feb, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > > > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 19:19 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." a écrit : > > > > On 2/14/11 9:13 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > > > > And http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=349053#c1 ? I tried to > > > > > provide a clue howto get usable p.keywords list easy. > > > > > > > > IMHO it's in the middle. I still have to do a manual step, but at least > > > > it's pretty straightforward. Anyway, I think a list that can be blindly > > > > copy-pasted makes things even easier. > > > > > > I don't think making a list for each arch is going to make anything any > > > easier for maintainers requesting stabilization, which means those list > > > we need more time to generate before being released. You just move the > > > problem to another place. > > > > Why would you need to do that? Can't you just make a single list that > > either has keywords for every arch or a ** ? Presumably every arch needs > > a certain set of packages stable, and it doesn't matter if you > > redundantly specify packages that are already stable. > > Yes it does. I for one just use the list, compile and test all > the packages. If an entry is already stable, that effort is > wasted. > > I think automatically generating per-arch lists and dumping them > on the bug is a nice way to do it. Having a "tabled list" for use > by the maintainer and then generating one comment per > arch-specific list seems like a good idea to me. Yes it is more > verbose on the bug, but that is a little price to pay, I'd say.
Is using autounmask an option instead? That generates a nice little file with everything that was actually unmasked, assuming it's a single dependency tree of packages. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com
pgpJUwhMoUlyS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
