Re: [gentoo-dev] Does the scm ebuild masking policy make sense for git?

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 2014-09-09, o godz. 17:41:27
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> napisał(a):

> Samuli Suominen:
> >
> > On 08/09/14 06:47, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> >> On 09/07/2014 09:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >>> Right now the general policy is that we don't allow unmasked (hard or
> >>> via keywords) ebuilds in the tree if they use an scm to fetch their
> >>> sources.  There are a bunch of reasons for this, and for the most part
> >>> they make sense.
> >> Hard masking is a relic from the days that we didn't just have empty
> >> keywords, most of the VCS ebuilds in the tree just have empty keywords
> >> now and are not actually hard masked. I'd say if you set
> >> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="**" then you get to keep the pieces.
> >
> > Hard masking is a relic? That's nonsense
> >
> > It just always has been a decision left for the developer him or herself
> > if the masking needs a message or not (package.mask being the way
> > to mask package with a message, empty KEYWORDS the
> > way you don't need a message)
> >
>
> Empty KEYWORDS is actually sort of a hack and basically says "doesn't
> work on any architecture" which is certainly always wrong and hides
> information from the user.

You are incorrect. Lack of keyword means 'hell if I know whether it
works', which is pretty much the problem with live builds.

'Does not work' is represented by minus-keyword, e.g.
KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~x86 -*".

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny