| 1 |
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 01:52:17PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> Council members, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> a policy was just pointed out to me on IRC today that I think we should |
| 5 |
> look at changing with regard to how we are supposed to deal with live |
| 6 |
> ebuilds. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> According to the dev manual, all live ebuilds are supposed to be put in |
| 9 |
> package.mask [1]. The reality of the situation, however, is that we are |
| 10 |
> mostly using empty keywords for live ebuilds. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I think the policy of requiring package.mask for live ebuilds happened |
| 13 |
> before the empty keywords option was available. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Can we discuss and maybe vote on how we want live ebuilds in the tree? I |
| 16 |
> see three possibilities: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> 1) empty keywords (this appears to be what most people are doing) |
| 19 |
> 2) package.mask (not required, the way I see it, because of 1 and |
| 20 |
> because package.mask shouldn't be permanent) |
| 21 |
> 3) both package.mask and empty keywords (this would be double masking, |
| 22 |
> and again shouldn't be necessary) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Ok folks, we were talking about this on #g-council, and there actually |
| 25 |
is a bug about this that would resolve the issue, so we don't need this |
| 26 |
on the agenda [1]. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Sorry for the noise. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
William |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421993 |
Archives