Re: [gentoo-dev] Does the scm ebuild masking policy make sense for git?

[hasufell]

Tom Wijsman:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:09:38 +0000
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
>
>> Tom Wijsman:
>>>> It improves usability by providing additional information.
>>>
>>> Usability is not to be found in information that is subject to
>>> change.
>>
>> Please also set DEPEND, RDEPEND, EGIT_REPO_URI, DESCRIPTION and the
>> rest of them to "", because they are all subject to change.
>
> Most of them are destructive to proper arch testing, where "" keywords
> are not destructive to it. As for DESCRIPTION, that is not subject.
>
>>> So, both quotes reveal that empty keywords fit very well;
>>
>> No, they just reveal that people didn't think carefully enough before
>> establishing that policy.
>
> Check the history instead of making wild guesses about past thoughts;
> if you want to rate context, give facts and references to back it up.
>
>>> by limiting its length.
>>
>> Welcome to 2014. We have tools that can aid you with dealing with big
>> files.
>
> Even in 2014, we clean crap; tools aren't an excuse for not recycling.
>
>>> Information that is a given; as known, live ebuilds miss arch
>>> testing.
>>
>> If an ebuild hasn't been tested on _any_ arch, then it shouldn't be in
>> the tree at all.
>
> Live ebuilds are an exception that can be in the Portage tree. If you
> want to suggest their removal from the Portage tree, start a new thread.
>
>> In addition, it is obviously wrong, since most people will at least
>> test their own live ebuilds on major arches and they are allowed to
>> add those keywords without involving arch teams.
>
> So, they throw proper arch testing and snapshots out of the window?
>

I don't see any sense in what you say. You sound confused.