Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: hasufell <hasufell@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Does the scm ebuild masking policy make sense for git?
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:09:52
Message-Id: 541069B2.8040202@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Does the scm ebuild masking policy make sense for git? by Tom Wijsman
1 Tom Wijsman:
2 >> It improves usability by providing additional information.
3 >
4 > Usability is not to be found in information that is subject to change.
5 >
6
7 Please also set DEPEND, RDEPEND, EGIT_REPO_URI, DESCRIPTION and the rest
8 of them to "", because they are all subject to change.
9
10 > So, both quotes reveal that empty keywords fit very well;
11
12 No, they just reveal that people didn't think carefully enough before
13 establishing that policy.
14
15 > by limiting its length.
16 >
17
18 Welcome to 2014. We have tools that can aid you with dealing with big files.
19
20 >
21 > Information that is a given; as known, live ebuilds miss arch testing.
22 >
23
24 If an ebuild hasn't been tested on _any_ arch, then it shouldn't be in
25 the tree at all.
26
27 In addition, it is obviously wrong, since most people will at least test
28 their own live ebuilds on major arches and they are allowed to add those
29 keywords without involving arch teams.

Replies