On Tuesday 03 February 2004 21:10, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 13:58, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > On Tuesday 03 February 2004 16:28, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > db-4.1.25_p1-r3 KEYWORDS="ia64 ppc amd64 ppc64 hppa" > > > db-4.0.14-r2 KEYWORDS="x86 sparc alpha mips" > > > > For this ebuild we might look into moving db-4.1 into stable. In any case > > I seriously doubt whether it is wise for non-experimental architectures > > to mark ebuilds stable that are not stable for the main arch (x86) > > (experimental being the amd64 and ia64 archs) > > What about packages that do not exist for the "main arch"? I definitely > do not consider ANY arch to be the main one, even though x86 is > definitely the most widely used. In fact, we need to break ourselves > entirely from the idea of a specific arch and work to make as much arch > independent work as possible. Duplication of work sucks...
The main arch is just that arch that the arch that the maintainer of said package uses. In this way there is always a main arch for the package. As the maintainer can be assumed to know most about a package it might be better to leave the maintainer to judge the stability of a package. > > > > Actually I would like to be able to download the tree 10 years from now > > and given that the source files are there it should be possible to build > > a gentoo system (NOT SECURE, not all hardware) that is the same to one > > from now. > > I agree completely. I think the idea is to only keep a year. > Personally, I would like to keep the *tree* forever, just only provide > fixes for a year (or however long we decide). That was my idea indeed. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgp00000.pgp
Description: signature
