| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 19:13 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
| 2 |
> I hope I am not really hijacking the thread, but: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> maillog: 25/02/2005-10:18:12(+0100): Francesco Riosa types |
| 5 |
> > Maybe after some time it has been in the tree keyworded "-*" (testing, |
| 6 |
> > testing, testing)? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> What's the policy for "-*" v.s. "package.mask"? '-*' is pretty annoying |
| 9 |
> in my opinion. Is "-*" for really, really bad ebuilds or something? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Like many things in Gentoo, there is no hard and fast policy. The |
| 12 |
general rule is that you use -* when you don't want *anyone* |
| 13 |
accidentally installing the ebuild. A good example would be a newer |
| 14 |
version of glibc that could potentially do something very nasty if the |
| 15 |
user didn't follow the directions. In this case, you would p.mask it |
| 16 |
*and* use -*, to keep people who happen to have "sys-libs/glibc" in |
| 17 |
their p.unmask. This forces the person want to test to manually |
| 18 |
intervene to get the package, and ensures that people running the |
| 19 |
package *want* to run the package. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
You will also see -* in binary ebuilds, as it tells people that this |
| 22 |
will *only* work on the platforms in KEYWORDS, like KEYWORDS="-* x86 |
| 23 |
amd64" would do. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 27 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 28 |
Games - Developer |
| 29 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives