1 |
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:40:50 +0530 |
2 |
Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a |
5 |
> best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they |
6 |
> are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file |
7 |
> collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable |
8 |
> by itself? |
9 |
|
10 |
In my opinion, an ebuild should be added to the tree as long as it will |
11 |
be useful to users. If your ebuild is WIP but you want to give some |
12 |
users an option to already use it or get some feedback, you could |
13 |
consider adding it. |
14 |
|
15 |
Moreover, I wouldn't take dependency-related issues as a reason to mask |
16 |
the ebuild. As long as it's not going to hurt users' system or (if it's |
17 |
an version bump) replace working version with non-working one, it |
18 |
doesn't need the mask. |
19 |
|
20 |
So, it all depends on how useful the ebuild is, and how dangerous it |
21 |
can become. If it just misses some polishes, it's acceptable -- as long |
22 |
as you're going to maintain it and fix all the known issues ASAP. |
23 |
|
24 |
Please notice that this is no official statement but only my personal |
25 |
opinion on the topic. |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Best regards, |
29 |
Michał Górny |
30 |
|
31 |
<http://mgorny.alt.pl> |
32 |
<xmpp:mgorny@××××××.ru> |