Re: [gentoo-dev] Change policy about live ebuilds

[Dane Smith]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/23/2010 08:30 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> said:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> The official policy for live ebuilds is the following one:
>>
>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_unpack/cvs-sources/index.html
>>
>> I don't quite agree with this policy and I guess most of you don't agree
>> either looking at the number of live ebuilds/package.mask entries.
>>
>> My proposal is to keep empty keywords on live ebuilds without masking
>> them via package.mask
>>
>> Users interpret this as a 'double masking' which in fact it is since
>> they need to touch two files before they are able to use the package.
>>
>> I also know that we can use overlays for that, but distribute the
>> ebuilds among dev/proj overlays is not always a solution.
>
> I'm personally against such a change and would infact like to see all
> live packages nuked from the tree and moved to some experimental tree.
> If you move them there, I don't care what policies you apply, but we
> should try to maintain a solid set of working packages in the main tree,
> which no one can guarantee with a live ebuild.  I know most people
> aren't going to agree with me, but I felt the need to say it anyway.
>

I know I'm still new around these parts, but I'll offer my two cents
anyway. Take it for what you will.

There are two mini-discussions I see going on:
1) Making the use of said 'live' ebuilds simpler and more convenient.
2) The purpose of live ebuilds and their eligibility to be in the tree.

As far as number one is concerned, I think that KEYWORDS="" is probably
a fair compromise. I don't really think adding a p.mask entry in
addition to that is necessary unless the it should be masked for some
reason other than that it is a 'live' ebuild.

As to number two, I would be inclined to agree that perhaps they should
be moved to a separate tree/overlay. I realize this is a major
undertaking, and is probably less than feasible, however, I have never
been a major fan of live ebuilds in the main tree. Either use a
snapshot, or move it to an overlay. Live ebuilds are a QA nightmare and
do not belong in the main tree. Only stable and experimental should be
in there. If that occurs, the discussion can be rendered somewhat moot.
KEYWORDS="" and no p.mask entry. They're in their own overlay, and
there's no worries as far as stability or the main tree so the p.mask
policy could safely be done away with.

Regards,
- -- 
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=0KUv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----