Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <gentoo@××××××××××.pl>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:22:01
Message-Id: 20100409212204.13f587a2@pomiot.lan
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds by Nirbheek Chauhan
1 On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:40:50 +0530
2 Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote:
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?
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.
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.
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.
24 Please notice that this is no official statement but only my personal
25 opinion on the topic.
27 --
28 Best regards,
29 Michał Górny
31 <>
32 <xmpp:mgorny@××××××.ru>


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o>