Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Change policy about live ebuilds

[Markos Chandras]

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:30:15PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:05:44 +0000
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote:
>
> > > Isn't that the point?  People should be discouraged in every way not to use
> > > live ebuilds.  I'd add a third if we had one. :)
> > >
> > > But yes, if I had to pick only one I'd go with dropping keywords over
> > > package.mask.  In fact it looks like I have some live ebuilds in the tree
> > > that do exactly that.
> > >
> > Actually not. Users are already familiar with the -9999 concept so there
> > is no point to add extra obstacles in their way. I am trying to find out
> > corner cases where double masking makes sense. Otherwise it makes no
> > sense to me. Actually the majority of users get confused when a package
> > is double masked. Just drop by forums etc and you will see :)
>
> Again, that's the point.  If you can't figure out how to get around a
> double mask then you have no business installing live ebuilds.
>
> But this is getting off topic.  If you want to change the policy to recommend
> dropping keywords rather than using package.mask then I support it.
> package.mask has the disadvantage that it's too easy to accidentally unmask
> live versions with >=.  And nothing stops someone from doing both if they
> want.
>
>
> --
> fonts, gcc-porting,                  it makes no sense how it makes no sense
> toolchain, wxwidgets                           but i'll take it free anytime
> @ gentoo.org                EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

If the majority of the devs ( at least of those who participate to this
thread ) is positive, then I will commit a patch to devmanual and
possibly migrate the cvs&svn sources pages into a single one.

-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411  3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410