1 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> said: |
2 |
> Hello |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Let my explain the problem and my suggestion to handle it better (at |
5 |
> least from my point of view) with an example: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Sometime ago I bumped bluez version from 4.39-r2 to 4.60, with that |
8 |
> bump, a new and *optional* RDEPEND on sys-libs/libcap-ng was added. |
9 |
> Since libcap-ng was not keyworded in all arches but x86 and amd64, I |
10 |
> had to drop keywords for bluez and open |
11 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=303527 for handling it. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> From my point of view, I would prefer to: |
14 |
> 1. Mask "caps" for net-wireless/bluez on affected arches, letting us to |
15 |
> keep bluez keyworded. |
16 |
> 2. Open two bug reports as done with current policy: one for keywording |
17 |
> libcap-ng and other to check bluez works ok with it asking arch team to |
18 |
> unmask that USE flag if possible. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> This way to go would have the advantage of letting people running bluez |
21 |
> on affected arches to still get the latest bluez version instead of |
22 |
> still having to run a pretty old (and buggy) one. |
23 |
|
24 |
it seems to depend on turnaround time. if arch teams respond quickly, then |
25 |
the USE flag masking would just be an increase in workload. if they are |
26 |
slow to respond then that may be a good investment. |
27 |
|
28 |
given that one cant dictate the speed at which arch teams work, your |
29 |
proposal sounds very sensible. |
30 |
|
31 |
I am OK with both methods. |
32 |
|
33 |
kind regards |
34 |
Thilo |
35 |
|
36 |
> |
37 |
> Thanks for considering it |