| 1 |
Samuli Suominen: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 08/09/14 06:47, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 09/07/2014 09:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Right now the general policy is that we don't allow unmasked (hard or |
| 6 |
>>> via keywords) ebuilds in the tree if they use an scm to fetch their |
| 7 |
>>> sources. There are a bunch of reasons for this, and for the most part |
| 8 |
>>> they make sense. |
| 9 |
>> Hard masking is a relic from the days that we didn't just have empty |
| 10 |
>> keywords, most of the VCS ebuilds in the tree just have empty keywords |
| 11 |
>> now and are not actually hard masked. I'd say if you set |
| 12 |
>> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="**" then you get to keep the pieces. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Hard masking is a relic? That's nonsense |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It just always has been a decision left for the developer him or herself |
| 17 |
> if the masking needs a message or not (package.mask being the way |
| 18 |
> to mask package with a message, empty KEYWORDS the |
| 19 |
> way you don't need a message) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Empty KEYWORDS is actually sort of a hack and basically says "doesn't |
| 23 |
work on any architecture" which is certainly always wrong and hides |
| 24 |
information from the user. |
Archives