On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 4:11 PM orbea <or...@riseup.net> wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:38:48 +0100 > Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > orbea <or...@riseup.net> writes: > > > > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:18:45 +0100 > > > Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > >> orbea <or...@riseup.net> writes: > > >> > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > >> > Several months ago I made this issue for keywording the > > >> > games-emulation/jgemu meta package which is a collection of > > >> > minimal emulators for the command-line games-emulation/jgrf > > >> > frontend with a focus on accuracy. > > >> > > > >> > > >> You've not populated the package list and no arches are CC'd, but > > >> we don't keyword things for no reason either on (very) niche > > >> arches. > > >> > > >> Please select a reasonable set of architectures. > > >> > > >> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/891201 > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Apologies, I wasn't aware I needed to do that and in retrospect I > > > should of thought of it. Just to be clear you mean add an issue for > > > each issue and then use them as blockers for the > > > games-emulation/jgemu issue? > > > > No, one bug is okay if you populate the package list field in > > Bugzilla. > > > > Just keep in mind that keywording isn't the same as upstreaam CI > > either and we generally want to only keyword on arches where someone > > is likely to use it. > > > > Apologies, I now understand what you meant... > > The goal is to hopefully entice real world testers on systems that > jgemu may be used. This is not something a CI would be able to > accomplish.
This is not an appropriate use of Gentoo arch testing. We keyword things based on user demand, not to satisfy the urges of upstream developers.
