On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 10:46 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Now what problem are we trying to solve? As I see it, it is mainly > one of manpower, namely that some arch teams cannot keep up with > stable requests, and I doubt that any technical solution will help > to solve this. Introducing a "noarch" keyword or allowing "*" will > potentially cause problems with dependency resolution. > > Instead, we should come up with a clear set of rules under what > circumstances package maintainers are allowed to stabilise ebuilds > themselves on all architectures. >
When they have machines that cover all architectures - assuming there is some sort of machine code at all. Otherwise, why even bother having stable keywords? Everyone keeps going on about how they will potentially have issues because something old is stable - I've thrown out that maybe we should (after a certain amount of time - when cleaning maybe?) remove all keywords except the only stable one, and then leaving it up to the slow arches. I know what the dev manual says, but I'd much rather have an old ebuild that's KEYWORDS="-* arm" than have that ebuild removed because a new one is KEYWORDS="arm" that doesn't work at all. Everyone else keeps talking in the theoretical, and I'm talking an actual issue. This affects me and my workflow and ask ryao about how he wanted to emerge git-9999 to look into fixing it... -- steev
