| 1 |
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 17/07/14 02:28 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 6 |
>> El jue, 17-07-2014 a las 17:03 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
| 7 |
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:23:20 -0400 Rich Freeman |
| 8 |
>>> <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>> I think that sticking KEYWORDS in an eclass is something that |
| 10 |
>>>> should probably never happen. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> It used to be banned by PMS, for other reasons... |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> I have just found this: |
| 16 |
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342185 |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> Then, looks like they are refusing to change it :( |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> OK, so, we're back to the complicated option -- a different set of |
| 22 |
> KEYWORDS for each class of RELEASE (ie, RELEASE=true, RELEASE=false, |
| 23 |
> or a new RELEASE=in-progress); ebuilds are set to in-progress for the |
| 24 |
> particular set that are being stabilized, and KEYWORDS are adjusted in |
| 25 |
> the eclass. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> I guess we'll have to wait until vapier's back to get it done, tho.. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
No, we can still choose to ban this practice. Is there a good reason |
| 31 |
to do it this way? A REALLY good reason? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
If not, I suggest we make policy to prohibit this, and only allow it |
| 34 |
in circumstances TBD (the Council can consider them if somebody |
| 35 |
actually comes up with one). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I agree that it isn't a PMS issue - it is a tree quality issue. PMS |
| 38 |
doesn't prohibit introducing packages straight to stable, dropping |
| 39 |
stable packages, etc. These are all tree quality issues and a matter |
| 40 |
of policy. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Rich |
Archives