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 >
+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 added. 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. Alexis.
