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

[hasufell]

Micha³ Górny:
> Dnia 2014-09-09, o godz. 17:41:27
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> napisa³(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 -*".
>

Saying "I don't know any architecture it works on" is also certainly
almost wrong, unless the developer pushes ebuilds to the tree he has
never even tested on his own machine (or didn't even ask upstream which
architectures are supported).