On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 17:32:02 -0600 William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Listing the architectures seems redundant if they are also in the cc: > field. In your example above, why would you need arm in the cc: field > for app-foo/bas-2.3.4? Often, the required work for "lists of keywords/stabilizations" has inconsistency. e.g: Often you'll have only a few packages that need actioned on one arch and you'll need a dozen or so that need actioned on others. Hence, breaking them down to have keywords on the atom lines allows for a quick grep of what's affected. For example, https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=599550#c0 Where I sorted everything to minimise how tall each list would be. Only 3 packages needed actioned to satisfy ~arm, ~hppa and ~ppc 7 packages needed action for ~alpha 10 packages needed action for ~ppc64 and 14 packages needed action for ~ia64 and ~sparc People who process such lists of course are free to ignore this metadata. But I'd imagine having a short checklist of "tweak these and it should work" to be helpful. *especially* given the current default behaviour of `ekeyword`, where calling ekeyword ~foo Will unintentionally downgrade stable to ~arch, even though the point was to change from unkeyworded to ~arch. Surely though, we could fix that? ekeyword --as-needed ~foo PKGHERE Plz?
pgpbhXIWmHiRM.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
