| 1 |
Monday, 19. February 2007, Stefan Schweizer Ви написали: |
| 2 |
> To my fellow arguing Gentoo developers, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> due to the recent conflict concerning keywording I want to propose to |
| 5 |
> separate keywording completely from ebuilds. The keywords would reside |
| 6 |
> in a special file in profiles/, maybe even in more than one file to |
| 7 |
> allow more granular permissions. For example only mips developers can |
| 8 |
> access |
| 9 |
> the mips keywording file then. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Can you please clarify what exactly you are proposing. Is this |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
a) move all the keywording into profiles (that is remove all KEYWORDS fields |
| 14 |
from all the ebuild) and disallow package maintainers and other devs (other |
| 15 |
than arch teams) to touch keywords |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
or |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
b) leave ebuilds with simple ~arch/arch/-arch (literally) keywords and move |
| 20 |
granular per-arch settings to profiles |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
or something else? Even then I am not sure how either of these is going to |
| 23 |
work, especially this: |
| 24 |
> The arch team can then decide themselves which ebuild they want to mark |
| 25 |
> ~arch and they can take care of possible new dependencies themselves. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
normally new versions/packages go directly into ~arch unless they are |
| 28 |
transiently masked by developer (waiting for release, etc) or are permanently |
| 29 |
masked live-cvs/svn ones. I am not sure how a) is going to work at all in |
| 30 |
this respect. Are we going to get tons of ebuilds just sitting there never |
| 31 |
made visible to any arch now (since even x86 would have a large backlog)? b) |
| 32 |
seems more sane, but then the particulars of the interaction (of devs and |
| 33 |
arch teams) are not clear. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
George |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives