| 1 |
W dniu 03.02.2011 08:39, Torsten Veller pisze: |
| 2 |
> * Theo Chatzimichos <tampakrap@g.o>: |
| 3 |
>> For the record, Kacper told me today that every developer is allowed to touch |
| 4 |
>> ppc/ppc64 profiles. Archies that don't want others to touch their profiles |
| 5 |
>> should mention it in the devmanual. I was not aware of that, I thought that |
| 6 |
>> !arch member is not allowed to touch arch-specific profiles. |
| 7 |
Just to be clear I was talking about package.mask file. Kitten-forbid |
| 8 |
you tweak e.g. make.defaults. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Honestly, I don't see the reasons why dev should be forbid to *add* pkgs |
| 11 |
to package.mask file for other profiles that inherit base. |
| 12 |
*Removing* is quite different, but again common sense advise you |
| 13 |
shouldn't lift it until reason for masking is gone. That you cannot |
| 14 |
verify if you're not an arch member. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> The situation is complicated: |
| 17 |
<snip> |
| 18 |
> - Some arch teams don't want other devs to touch "their" profiles: |
| 19 |
> "DON'T TOUCH THIS FILE. Instead, file a bug and assign it to..." |
| 20 |
> But this arch is neiter mentioned in the handbook nor in the manual: |
| 21 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=5#doc_chap4 |
| 22 |
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/archs/index.html |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Clearly if something is written in bold and at the very top of the file |
| 25 |
you should respect. I'm sure there are reasons for it and I've never |
| 26 |
seen that particular arch being unresponsive. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> - The devhandbook[2] is also kind of unmaintained. |
| 29 |
> Devmanual and -handbook are waiting for a merge AFAIR. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> - And there is already a stalled bug[3] about "Developer Handbook should |
| 32 |
> document how/when to touch arch profiles' files" |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Summary: You do it wrong either way. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
The problem actually boils down to asking... Arch team members are out |
| 37 |
there on irc, have mail aliases, etc. This very thread was started due |
| 38 |
to lack of communication. It could have looked like that: |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
KDE: I would like to unmask KDE-4.6.0 in base, but that requires mask in |
| 41 |
ppc64/package.mask. Can I do it? |
| 42 |
PPC64: Sure, go ahead. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
and it would have taken approx. 30s |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Cheers, |
| 47 |
Kacper |
Archives