Gentoo Archives: gentoo-qa

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-qa@l.g.o
Cc: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>, Steve Dibb <beandog@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 03:02:09
Message-Id: 200803142303.03033.vapier@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask by Alec Warner
On Friday 14 March 2008, Alec Warner wrote:
> On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: > > On Thursday 13 March 2008, Steve Dibb wrote: > > > Because package.mask in CVS for profiles is so huge, I think it might > > > help it to get organized if we split it up a bit. > > > > > > halcyon had a good idea for the scheme: testing, broken, removal. > > > That seems to sum up the main 3 reason that a package would be masked. > > > > > > Right now there are 679 entries in package.mask. The reason I came up > > > with the idea was to find a way to make it easier for treecleaners to > > > quickly see which ones they were working on. > > > > > > I'd like to take the discussion to -dev but wanted to get QA's > > > thoughts first. I haven't looked into whether or not this is > > > technically feasible at all. > > > > i think the real solution here is allowing masking in a package > > You want to add a metadata key and cache it you mean?
i dont care terribly much about the logistics, just the results. as long as an ebuild can declare itself masked, it sounds good to me. this doesnt preclude the other ideas as there are often times where you want to have 1 global package mask piece (like large package set bumps ... so X or KDE or GNOME or ...). -mike

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature