Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Add support for package.keywords in profiles?
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:41:13
Message-Id: 48B2FCA7.4040301@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Add support for package.keywords in profiles? by Peter Volkov
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 Peter Volkov wrote:
5 > В Вск, 17/08/2008 в 17:24 -0700, Zac Medico пишет:
6 >> At least a few people have expressed a desire to have support for a
7 >> package.keywords file in the profiles [1] as a means to add or
8 >> subtract any number values to or from the KEYWORDS that apply to a
9 >> given ebuild.
10 >
11 > It's good feature for overlays, but I think we should avoid this in
12 > portage tree as having same information in two places can be avoided in
13 > this case: it's better and not so hard to write tool which will keyword
14 > packages based on package.keywords file and new keywords could be chosen
15 > like GLEP 22 suggests.
16
17 I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this tool that you mention.
18 Are you saying that package.keywords might be a good thing to use
19 initially and then later, if we choose (maybe we will or maybe we
20 won't), we have the option do an automated migrations of specific
21 profiles to separate keywords like those in GLEP 22?
22
23 > Or do we really want to start using profiles to force toolchain (e.g.
24 > gcc versions) like bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55321#c3 comment
25 > suggests? If so than maybe it's better to move keywording information
26 > from ebuilds to profiles and than may be there is better solution
27 > instead of having one package.keywords file?
28
29 Obviously there are an infinite number of possible approaches. The
30 main reason I brought this up was that a user had expressed a desire
31 to have package.keywords for use in private profiles (not the
32 official gentoo ones). The question of whether or not we should
33 implement package.keywords for the sake of private profiles should
34 be considered separately from the question of whether or not we
35 choose a policy to allow the use of package.keywords in one or more
36 of our official gentoo profiles.
37 - --
38 Thanks,
39 Zac
40 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
41 Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
42
43 iEYEARECAAYFAkiy/KUACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNF1QCgzhcQB8lnIDfB3YCC1RAnzhZI
44 BcIAn1NBYmt4svIslKhSNCu9WK4pChpt
45 =YEN2
46 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies