1 |
Sorry for the belated reply, but it seems we still haven't done anything |
2 |
about this -- and it frustrated me enough today that I decided to revive |
3 |
this thread :) |
4 |
|
5 |
> so i guess people are using KEYWORDS=-* because they dont want ppl |
6 |
> easily emerging a package that will break them ... specifically the |
7 |
> latest gcc/glibc ebuilds ... now while i agree that they are not |
8 |
> suitable for stable or unstable systems, and maybe too risky even for |
9 |
> package.mask, it is a pita to emerge these suckers and then safely |
10 |
> keep them on youur system ... |
11 |
|
12 |
I don't see what KEYWORDS=-* does that package.mask doesn't? Just mark |
13 |
the packages unstable, package.mask them, and throw in a comment in |
14 |
package.mask saying "This will most likely completely break your |
15 |
system". |
16 |
|
17 |
Problem solved. Users don't get the package, and developers can easily |
18 |
unmask it if needed. This certainly beats the screwing around you need |
19 |
to do now to get these packages built. |
20 |
|
21 |
> |
22 |
> what i propose is that people who make ebuilds with KEYWORDS=-* add in |
23 |
> an extra little word, namely 'pleasebreakme'. that is, from now on, |
24 |
> have it read: |
25 |
> KEYWORDS="-* pleasebreakme" |
26 |
|
27 |
I don't see any reason for this. Isn't this the exact reason we have |
28 |
package.mask? |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Matt Rickard |
32 |
frogger@g.o |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |