| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 03:29:10PM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> Il giorno dom, 21/11/2010 alle 13.11 +0000, Markos Chandras ha scritto: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > My proposal is to keep empty keywords on live ebuilds without masking |
| 5 |
> > them via package.mask |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The reason why many of them are in p.mask is usually because _I_ added |
| 8 |
> them there as they didn't mask with KEYWORDS="", and simply dropping |
| 9 |
> keywords would have users angry. |
| 10 |
This is the alternative approach. Retain the keywords and mask the |
| 11 |
package which doesn't look that safe in case you have both a normal |
| 12 |
version and a live ebuild masked. Then users should pay extra attention |
| 13 |
which version they unmask. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Users interpret this as a 'double masking' which in fact it is since |
| 16 |
> > they need to touch two files before they are able to use the package. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Fine by me, but the problem remains that users won't know _why_ the |
| 19 |
> package is masked, way too many times. |
| 20 |
I don't understand that. The default policy would be empty keywords. If |
| 21 |
you need to mask a live ebuild using package.mask because e.g master |
| 22 |
branch is terribly broken or whatever then it makes sense. But I am not |
| 23 |
sure I understand what you are saying :-) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> -- |
| 26 |
> Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” |
| 27 |
> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, |
| 30 |
> it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/ |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
| 36 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 37 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |
| 38 |
Key ID: 441AC410 |
| 39 |
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410 |
Archives