Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mark Loeser <halcy0n@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:13:42
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds by Nirbheek Chauhan
1 Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> said:
2 > So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a
3 > best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they
4 > are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file
5 > collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable
6 > by itself?
8 Just use some common sense. If its completely broken, it obviously
9 doesn't belong in the tree. If its something that somewhat works and is
10 actively being worked on, then its probably safe to add it and
11 package.mask it, with the intent that you are working towards getting it
12 to a state that it will be unmasked.
14 --
15 Mark Loeser
16 email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
17 email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com
18 web -


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