1 |
Okay, this is something that I've wondered about for a while, but need |
2 |
to ask -- what is the best way (do we even have a policy) for using |
3 |
package.use.mask in profiles? |
4 |
|
5 |
A couple of specific questions: |
6 |
|
7 |
If I need to mask a use flag because of use flag dependencies that won't |
8 |
work on a particular arch, do I need to contact the arch teams to modify |
9 |
their package.use.mask profile? If the answer is yes, I can see that as |
10 |
a huge blocker since I'd have to wait on the arches to do something |
11 |
before I can even put an ebuild in the tree. I realize this is a |
12 |
per-arch question depending on how each one might respond, but a common |
13 |
consensus would be good. |
14 |
|
15 |
Are there ever any cases where we could just simply put the use flag as |
16 |
restricted in the global package.use.mask and then unrestrict them in |
17 |
the profiles ones if, for example, it only worked on one or a few |
18 |
arches? Or is the best policy always to mask it on each profile? |
19 |
|
20 |
As for a specific example, mplayer's dxr2/dxr3 use flag now pulls in a |
21 |
dependency (media-video/em8300-libraries) which is only keyworded for |
22 |
x86, ppc, and amd64. That means I'd have to mask the use flag in alpha, |
23 |
hppa, ia64, ppc64 and sparc (according to repoman). I could skirt the |
24 |
issue completely and just run an if statement checking if they are using |
25 |
any of those three arches, but I'd prefer to do it the right way. And |
26 |
not piss off any arch teams in the process. |
27 |
|
28 |
So I guess my question is, can individual ebuild devs freely edit |
29 |
package.use.mask files in profiles? |
30 |
|
31 |
Steve |