Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: package.mask-ed ebuilds
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:09:42
Message-Id: 20100409131147.030ad810@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds by Nirbheek Chauhan
1 On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:40:50 +0530
2 Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > Hello!
5 >
6 > So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a
7 > best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they
8 > are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file
9 > collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable
10 > by itself?
11 >
12 > If yes:
13 >
14 > So we can add completely broken and useless stuff to tree as long as
15 > it's package.masked?
16 >
17 > If no:
18 >
19 > What's the minimum amount of "working-ness" that an ebuild must have
20 > to be added to tree? Who decides this? The QA team?
21
22 package.mask is good for when you have a bunch of stuff that needs to be
23 uncaged at the same time or for something potentially hazardous that needs
24 testing. i wouldn't add something that is in itself broken. i don't know if
25 it's allowed or not but an overlay is just more convenient for work like that.
26
27
28 --
29 fonts, by design, by neglect
30 gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect
31 wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

Attachments

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