On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:56 +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > I have foo 1.0, which is mips. There is foo 2.0, which is stable > > everywhere else. The foo 1.0 ebuild does not conform to current ebuild > > standards. I want to commit changes to foo 2.0, and repoman won't allow > > me due to problems in foo 1.0, but I don't want to WASTE MY TIME on foo > > 1.0, because it's been EOL for 2 years > > Why don't fix repoman not to scream about such issues, then?
What, have repoman complain only about problems in ebuilds that have been changed unless someone does "repoman full" ? Honestly, that coupled with dropping all KEYWORDS except for the arch in question (in other words, marking something KEYWORDS="mips" and then ignoring it, as a maintainer) would be enough to keep package maintainers and other architecture teams from having to deal with the crap left all over the tree due to slacker arches. Of course, tree quality would probably go down even more, since these QA issues would likely never be fixed on said architectures, but who really cares, anyway. The support burden gets lain on the people who are slacking, and not on the package maintainers or other architecture teams. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
