Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Change policy about live ebuilds
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:59:52
Message-Id: 201011251059.18453.aballier@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Change policy about live ebuilds by Dane Smith
1 On Thursday 25 November 2010 00:12:03 Dane Smith wrote:
2 > On 11/23/2010 08:30 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
3 [...]
4 > > I'm personally against such a change and would infact like to see all
5 > > live packages nuked from the tree and moved to some experimental tree.
6 > > If you move them there, I don't care what policies you apply, but we
7 > > should try to maintain a solid set of working packages in the main tree,
8 > > which no one can guarantee with a live ebuild. I know most people
9 > > aren't going to agree with me, but I felt the need to say it anyway.
10 >
11 > I know I'm still new around these parts, but I'll offer my two cents
12 > anyway. Take it for what you will.
13 >
14 > There are two mini-discussions I see going on:
15 > 1) Making the use of said 'live' ebuilds simpler and more convenient.
16 > 2) The purpose of live ebuilds and their eligibility to be in the tree.
17 [...]
18 > As to number two, I would be inclined to agree that perhaps they should
19 > be moved to a separate tree/overlay. I realize this is a major
20 > undertaking, and is probably less than feasible, however, I have never
21 > been a major fan of live ebuilds in the main tree. Either use a
22 > snapshot, or move it to an overlay. Live ebuilds are a QA nightmare and
23 > do not belong in the main tree. Only stable and experimental should be
24 > in there. If that occurs, the discussion can be rendered somewhat moot.
25 > KEYWORDS="" and no p.mask entry. They're in their own overlay, and
26 > there's no worries as far as stability or the main tree so the p.mask
27 > policy could safely be done away with.
28
29 There's no worry to have about stability or anything with empty keywords;
30 whereas with overlays I'm always worried to find an ebuild that will turn off
31 sandbox and rm -rf /, or do nasty things at global scope, etc.
32 I fail to understand why you claim that live ebuilds are a QA nightmare, you
33 may want to have a look at how I play with, eg, ffmpeg or vlc and their live
34 ebuilds: they make version bumps much easier and far less error prone.
35
36 A.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Change policy about live ebuilds "Paweł Hajdan