| 1 |
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:40:50 +0530 |
| 2 |
Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a |
| 5 |
> best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they |
| 6 |
> are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file |
| 7 |
> collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable |
| 8 |
> by itself? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
In my opinion, an ebuild should be added to the tree as long as it will |
| 11 |
be useful to users. If your ebuild is WIP but you want to give some |
| 12 |
users an option to already use it or get some feedback, you could |
| 13 |
consider adding it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Moreover, I wouldn't take dependency-related issues as a reason to mask |
| 16 |
the ebuild. As long as it's not going to hurt users' system or (if it's |
| 17 |
an version bump) replace working version with non-working one, it |
| 18 |
doesn't need the mask. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So, it all depends on how useful the ebuild is, and how dangerous it |
| 21 |
can become. If it just misses some polishes, it's acceptable -- as long |
| 22 |
as you're going to maintain it and fix all the known issues ASAP. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Please notice that this is no official statement but only my personal |
| 25 |
opinion on the topic. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Michał Górny |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
<http://mgorny.alt.pl> |
| 32 |
<xmpp:mgorny@××××××.ru> |
Archives