Re: [gentoo-dev] Documenting touching of arch profiles' files

[Michał Górny]

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:50:24 +0000
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > With regards to bug #304435[1], we would like to formalise the policy for
> > touching arch profiles' files.
> >
> > The key suggested points:
> >
> > * Archs profiles should generally only be touched by members of that arch
> > team, unless prior permission is given
> >
> > * Exception: anyone may add a mask to an arch profile only if
> >         - it delays visibility of something new for that arch (eg.
> > dependencies introduced in a version bump), and
> >         - it is not reasonable to follow the standard keyword dropping
> > procedure (many other packages would be affected), and
> >         - the responsible arch team is not responsive
> >
> > * The person touching arch profiles is responsible for the subsequent
> > maintenance of said entries, and any subsequent breakage.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Michael
> >
> > [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=304435
> >
>
> As Tommy[D] pointed out in IRC, developers are free(wrong word?) to
> touch package.use.mask for their packages but they should get an ACK
> for use.mask or just tell arches to do it on their behalf. This is an
> addition to what you have already said above.

What about eclass-wide USE_EXPAND flags? I have recently added masks to
the PYTHON_TARGETS for Python implementation not being keyworded on
particular arches.

With the exception of hppa which explicitly says its use.mask shouldn't
be touched without permission, and now I can't enable pypy on flaggie
because that arch is slacking. Great, isn't it?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny