On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 18:20:34 +0200 Mart Raudsepp <[email protected]> wrote:
> Might want a "broken" (with maybe a better name) for some of these. I > bet the ~arch of some of these is broken too, and no-one to respond to > keyword requests, just happens when it happens. > arm64 and mips are in that state too until we get that fixed and could > move to "testing" and then later "stable" in case of arm64. This is one aspect I liked about my other proposal, that the behaviours associated with various keywords was well defined. --- # keywords: # - strict: arch-foo and ~arch-foo treated distinctly # - mixed: arch-foo treated as ~arch-foo # - any: packages that exist and have any keywords are ~arch-foo # # dependencies: # - enforce: referential integrity within logical keywords # is required # - warn: referential integrity within logical keywords # warns when its bad, and enforced with -d # - ignore: referential integrity is not even considered # without -e y and enforced with -e y # name | keywords | dependencies stable strict check # was strict ignore dev mixed warn exp mixed ignore ---- In that, its instructive as to the significance of the terms. "Unstable" and "Broken" don't really say much to me. But dependencies=ignore much more adequately communicates to me the state that, dependency coherence is known to be problematic and that you should not care about dependency coherence unless you have some specific agenda. If we can mix and match some of these designs with the arch.desc file however, I'm all for it.
pgpEFP9VLjrpv.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
