| 1 |
Denis Dupeyron posted on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:15:20 -0600 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> x265-1.2.ebuild: KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~arm ~x86" |
| 6 |
>> x265-1.3.ebuild: KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~x86" |
| 7 |
>> x265-9999.ebuild: KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~x86" |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> As in... You forgot to add ~arm to -9999.ebuild |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Wait, what? Live ebuilds are keyworded now? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
AFAIK, gentoo policy is that live ebuilds should always be masked so as |
| 14 |
never to be automatically pulled in without a deliberate unmasking of the |
| 15 |
live ebuild, but whether that's masked due to lack of keywords (ebuild), |
| 16 |
or due to hard-mask (package.mask) is I believe up to the maintainer. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
For packages like this one where normal version-bumps start with the live |
| 19 |
ebuild (which after all should have been updated as development |
| 20 |
proceeded, upstream), simply copying it to the appropriate version-number |
| 21 |
ebuild, keeping it ~arch-keyworded on all archs where the non-live |
| 22 |
version is at least ~arch-keyworded, and using package.mask to force the |
| 23 |
masking, makes the most sense since then a version bump can literally |
| 24 |
amount to no more than an ebuild copy and manifest (tho obviously the |
| 25 |
maintainer will test it too, but ideally won't have to actually touch the |
| 26 |
content of the file). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 30 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 31 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives