Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-core@l.g.o, gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Keywords policy
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:25:28
1 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
2 > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:26:19 +0100
3 > "Wulf C. Krueger" <philantrop@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 >> No, we didn't because the whole thing is p.masked for a reason. It,
6 >> KDE 4.0.1, is broken crap that should not yet be re-keyworded.
7 >
8 > OK then. and I am not going to cross-post this to -dev@, btw: why the
9 > hell did you decide to put broken crap in the tree? It should never have
10 > left your repository, it seems.
12 It's package masked and unkeyworded, which is a big hint that it's under
13 development.
15 > If you still wonder why I started rekeywording for HPPA, then let this
16 > be the final answer. It was no fault of mine - I did it on purpose. No
17 > keywording error - I was going to finish all the dependencies if you
18 > hadn't asked me not to (because by then you were claiming KDE team
19 > "reserves" the "right" to drop keywords at will and without notifying
20 > arch teams, as opposed to current policy. The repoman bug / missing
21 > feature left a few stones unturned, sadly, but I was going to do all of
22 > KDE 4.
24 You're still not getting this. The KDE team did not _want_ these ebuilds
25 keyworded. That's why they _weren't_ keyworded. That's why there was no bug
26 filed, saying "hey we dropped these keywords" because they _did not want_ you to
27 add them back yet. When the ebuilds were of sufficient quality that they could
28 be tested, then a bug is filed, the ebuilds are tested, and then re-keyworded.
30 Maintainers have every right to drop keywords if they think changes to their
31 package are drastic enough to require re-evaluation by an architecture team.
32 It's how we keep big fat calamity from befalling our users. Yes, they need to
33 inform the arch teams to re-add their keywords. No that request does not need
34 to come immediately if they're not ready for it.
36 A simple rule to go by: Dropped keywords on package.masked packages are not
37 dropped keywords. If that package comes out of package.mask and still lacks
38 your keyword and no bug is filed, then yes, then you have a legitimate beef.
40 This is simply the way things work from my point of view as a maintainer and a
41 arch dev for a oft keyword-dropped arch.
44 --
45 fonts, gcc-porting, by design, by neglect
46 mips, treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect
47 wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662


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


Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Keywords policy Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>