Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should NATTkA reject keywordreqs for packages with -arch (-*) keywords?
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 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.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should NATTkA reject keywordreqs for packages with -arch (-*) keywords?
On 2020-05-06 00:52, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Tue, 05 May 2020 22:19:59 +0200 > Michał Górny 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 -- Regards, Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should NATTkA reject keywordreqs for packages with -arch (-*) keywords?
On Tue, 05 May 2020 22:19:59 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > TL;DR: should NATTkA reject request to keyword on arch if the ebuild has > '-arch' (or '-*') in KEYWORDS already? > > > Background: I've recently been rekeywording two packages that gained > dependency on gevent. When I was mass-requesting rekeywording, it > escaped my attention that gevent is explicitly marked '-ia64'. The arch > team apparently got mad at me and added gevent to their package.mask to > make its breakage more explicit. > > I think it would make sense if NATTkA detected '-ia64' there and told me > that the package is keyword-masked on ia64. > > The flip side is that it would prevent people from using NATTkA to > restore keywords that were marked '-arch' before. Of course, if this > would ever be necessary it could easily be resolved via removing '-arch' > first or adding some extra hack. > > 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. -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer pgpsWcCmYiPbG.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should NATTkA reject keywordreqs for packages with -arch (-*) keywords?
Hi, TL;DR: should NATTkA reject request to keyword on arch if the ebuild has '-arch' (or '-*') in KEYWORDS already? Background: I've recently been rekeywording two packages that gained dependency on gevent. When I was mass-requesting rekeywording, it escaped my attention that gevent is explicitly marked '-ia64'. The arch team apparently got mad at me and added gevent to their package.mask to make its breakage more explicit. I think it would make sense if NATTkA detected '-ia64' there and told me that the package is keyword-masked on ia64. The flip side is that it would prevent people from using NATTkA to restore keywords that were marked '-arch' before. Of course, if this would ever be necessary it could easily be resolved via removing '-arch' first or adding some extra hack. WDYT? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
