On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 20:49 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Now, you've heard that dropping keywords is bad. But you have a clever > idea, and make the dep alsa? ( !sparc? ( alsa libraries ) ). This gets > past repoman just fine. >
<STOP> As any arch can tell you, that's never stopped me - *IF* you do it correctly, ie comment out the existing keywords, add the keywords that the package can support, and file a bug against the arch's that you had to drop explaining the need for re-keywording because of a new dep that they don't yet support. AFAIK that's the correct way to do it - and I believe that pretty strongly since at this point there isn't a single arch that wouldn't have filed a grievance against me otherwise. Sure, those bugs may stay open for months and months and months because ia64 doesn't have the resources to devote (which is understood), but at that point you have 2 references for users, the ebuild with the commented out line, the ChangeLog, and the bug. Is this not how its supposed to be done? Because if it is, maybe those insistant on the !arch method should be pointed to that and leave it up to the arch's to make the decision of whether to keyword or disable specific support. Devs acting on behalf of a herd shouldn't be making these kind of arch decisions, but instead leaving it up to devs acting with their arch hats on. Maybe the two meet under the same roof sometimes, but more times than not they don't. Yep, that's a lot more work and effort and pain - but afaik it follows good qa methods. And despite the length of this message, I haven't spoken on one side of the fence or the other I think...sweet :) ~mcummings
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
