| 1 |
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:07:09 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Theo Chatzimichos <tampakrap@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> these days I am working on a puppet module for portage. For testing I |
| 6 |
>> have created a dummy package which can be found here [1]. The package |
| 7 |
>> installs files based on useflags, and it comes in stable, testing and |
| 8 |
>> hardmasked versions, plus it has some useflag changes between |
| 9 |
>> versions. With this package I can make sure that the puppet provider |
| 10 |
>> does its various operations fine. I'm about to start writing unit |
| 11 |
>> tests for that provider, and I would like to use that package for the |
| 12 |
>> testing. It would be preferred to move that package in tree though. |
| 13 |
>> Since the ebuilds are useless for everybody else, and maybe violate |
| 14 |
>> policy about the stable tree, I'd like to know if there are any |
| 15 |
>> objections to move it to tree. If there are none, I'll move it in one |
| 16 |
>> month |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> [1] https://github.com/gentoo-el/overlay/tree/master/app-misc/dummy |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> To be honest, I don't mind having dummy packages in the tree. I would |
| 21 |
> be happy to convert gentoopm sometime to use them instead of relying on |
| 22 |
> random packages to match its criteria. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> However, I'd rather see them in a special category, and preferably |
| 25 |
> prefixed with 'gentoo-' to make it least possible for any kind of name |
| 26 |
> collisions. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> -- |
| 29 |
> Best regards, |
| 30 |
> Michał Górny |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
If there are more dummy packages then a separate category seems good |
| 34 |
idea (and thanks for that), but if mine is the only case then i don't |
| 35 |
see a reason for that |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Theo |
Archives