| 1 |
Tom Wijsman: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 19:12:28 +0000 |
| 3 |
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Jauhien Piatlicki: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> When I accept ~arch I expect that no live ebuilds will be built. I |
| 8 |
>>> think other gentoo users expect the same. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Just because users are used to it doesn't make it better. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> How does it "make it better" for users that are used to what works well? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
It improves usability by providing additional information. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>>> Emerging live ebuild usually is quite a risky thing, so hiding such |
| 18 |
>>> stuff behind dropped keywords is quite reasonable. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> That's why you can mask them. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Masking is for packages that are known to be broken, not for risks. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
PMS doesn't specify what exactly package.mask is for, so scm ebuilds is |
| 26 |
a perfectly valid use case, unless you can come up with an alternative |
| 27 |
that is not wrong like empty KEYWORDS. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
>> The same flawed logic of empty KEYWORDS could actually be applied to |
| 31 |
>> any ebuild variable. |
| 32 |
>> You say "we can't test if it works for all these architectures |
| 33 |
>> reliably and for every single commit". |
| 34 |
>> Yeah, same goes for dependencies, license and even the description. |
| 35 |
>> Because it's a live ebuild, all of them can change. KEYWORDS is no |
| 36 |
>> special exception. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> KEYWORDS is a special exception because it involves arch testing. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Yes, and you hide this information from the user. |
Archives