On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 03:41 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> On 2020-05-06 00:52, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 May 2020 22:19:59 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > WDYT?
> > 
> > Play it safe. -* is frequently used for binary packages where an
> > arch
> > will simply either work or it won't, with little likelihood of the
> > situation changing. -arch is so rare that I don't recall ever
> > seeing
> > it. In either case, restoring an arch should be an explicit action.
> +1


with the addition that -arch (by opposition to -*) is usually used for
specifying "this has been tested and is broken, don't waste your time
on it". Or at least used to be used that way.

If a package relies on arch specific support, then we could make a case
that it should be '-*' + a whitelist of arches having said support.
So, IMHO, -arch is quite version specific: package being broken is
likely due to a bug that may or may not be fixed in later versions,
hence, to me it makes total sense to have keyword reqs even for -arch
if this is a newer version that the one that initially had its -arch

I also believe tools like ekeyword or repoman should reset -arch to
nothing, or at least issue a warning when adding new ebuilds with it,
which would make this simpler for nattka.


Reply via email to