1 |
All, |
2 |
|
3 |
I am moving this to a new thread so the thread about agenda items does |
4 |
not get too long. |
5 |
|
6 |
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 03:25:24PM -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
7 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
8 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
9 |
> |
10 |
> On 11/02/2013 02:52 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
11 |
|
12 |
* snip * |
13 |
|
14 |
> > Can we discuss and maybe vote on how we want live ebuilds in the tree? I |
15 |
> > see three possibilities: |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > 1) empty keywords (this appears to be what most people are doing) |
18 |
> > 2) package.mask (not required, the way I see it, because of 1 and |
19 |
> > because package.mask shouldn't be permanent) |
20 |
> > 3) both package.mask and empty keywords (this would be double masking, |
21 |
> > and again shouldn't be necessary) |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > Thoughts? |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Personally, I prefer option 1. That said, there is a reason for Options |
26 |
> 2 and 3. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> When using a minor arch, a lot of packages are not keyworded for that |
29 |
> arch, which then requires me to install them with KEYWORDS="**" and that |
30 |
> pulls in live ebuilds all the time. Personally, I'm fine dealing with |
31 |
> things like that, but that would be a valid reason for requiring |
32 |
> package.mask. That said, if we want to persue that, I would say that we |
33 |
> should start adding keywords to live ebuilds (~arch obviously) and |
34 |
> p.mask them so we know what arches it is expected to work on. |
35 |
|
36 |
Have you tried specifying the version of the package you want, e.g. |
37 |
|
38 |
=app-misc/foo-x.y.z ** |
39 |
|
40 |
should pull in the exact version you want to test. |
41 |
|
42 |
William |