On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 09:03:17PM +0100 or thereabouts, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > Could you explain why you think that architecture specific stable keywords are > necessary? Would that not create a too big strain on the arch developers. If > a package is stable on an arch shouldn't it also be automatically a candidate > for the stable tree?
Well, let's take BerkDB as an example. Currently, db-4.1.25_p1-r3 has the following keywords: KEYWORDS="ia64 ~x86 ppc ~alpha amd64 ~sparc ~mips ppc64 hppa" Then, db-4.0.14-r2.ebuild has: KEYWORDS="x86 ~ppc sparc alpha mips hppa ~arm amd64 ia64" So which one would be marked stable? The first is ~x86 but ppc, the second is ~ppc but x86. Also, what happens with ~x86 ebuilds that are marked stable on other arches (such as db-4.1.25) Should AMD64, Itanium, PPC and HPPA users all be forced to use an older version of db? Or do we force x86 users to use a version of db that is currently ~masked? --kurt
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
