1 |
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:32:03 +0200 |
2 |
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:50:34 +0200 |
5 |
> Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 14:30:56 +0200 |
8 |
> > Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > There is no "instead". |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Why is there no "instead"? |
13 |
|
14 |
"I planned to unkeyword the USE flags instead" - this is wrong. The |
15 |
policy (see below for the link - you seem to have trouble finding it |
16 |
every time I point it out) is to drop keywords (that is entries in the |
17 |
KEYWORDS variable, see below for an extra explanation since you seem to |
18 |
be confused as to what it means). |
19 |
|
20 |
> > The default policy (did you read the devmanual yet?) |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Which policy are you referring to? (Did you refer me to anything?) |
23 |
|
24 |
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html |
25 |
|
26 |
"Sometimes you may need to remove a keyword because of new unresolved |
27 |
dependencies. If you do this, you *must* file a bug notifying the |
28 |
relevant arch teams." |
29 |
|
30 |
> > is to DROP KEYWORDS (and let arch teams re-add them) |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Which is what I exactly did for the USE flags on most of the arches; |
33 |
> and a bug was planned to be filed, such that they can decide on it. |
34 |
|
35 |
You are apparently confusing "dropping keywords" (entries in the |
36 |
KEYWORDS variable in an ebuild) with "masking USE flags". Why would you |
37 |
do that? I know you are smarter than this. |
38 |
|
39 |
> > -unless- that is really cumbersome (when you need to drop more and |
40 |
> > more keywords as a result). |
41 |
> |
42 |
> Please do not make additional exceptions, we have enough of them. |
43 |
|
44 |
What do you mean? This common sense policy has been in place for years. |
45 |
If dropping one keyword breaks many (rev-)deps and is therefore not an |
46 |
option, it's quite the norm to either file a keyword request bug well in |
47 |
advance of anything in the tree breaking, or temporarily mask either |
48 |
ebuilds or USE flags, generally or specifically for an arch profile, |
49 |
and inform the arch teams. |
50 |
|
51 |
> Right; bug reference added, I see no other problem here. |
52 |
|
53 |
That should also tell you that it helps to inform arch teams by |
54 |
filing a bug report -before- you drop keywords or mess up the profiles. |
55 |
|
56 |
> Two entries will continue to be two entries; so, I do not see where |
57 |
> the difference in work comes from. Can you now please explain the |
58 |
> exception? |
59 |
|
60 |
There is no exception. You've made that bit up. |
61 |
|
62 |
The proper procedure is to ask arch teams to re-keyword the ebuild you |
63 |
had to drop their keyword for. If that is impossible, several other |
64 |
scenarios can be played out, such as use.masking to cover up a |
65 |
deficiency in porting to said arch, dropping keywords for that arch |
66 |
altogether, or whatever might work. The point is that you shouldn't be |
67 |
making that decision - you just maintain the package, not the arch |
68 |
profile, and you ran into a problem which you didn't propose they fix |
69 |
- you just covered it all up. |
70 |
|
71 |
The difference in work would amount to editing two files in the |
72 |
profiles/ subdir per architecture you want to abuse profiles/ for |
73 |
instead of asking their actual opinion, then later both undoing all |
74 |
that work and simply changing the files that matter, the ebuilds and |
75 |
auxiliary files (some 6 files in the example). |
76 |
|
77 |
For an arch developer wanting to test if the new dep should really be |
78 |
masked, or actually works just fine on his arch and should have been |
79 |
keyworded long ago, the improper procedure involves both unmasking the |
80 |
new dep in package.keywords as well as unmasking the USE flag on the |
81 |
test system, and then reversing the profile change and adding the |
82 |
keyword to the new dep. |
83 |
|
84 |
With just the dropped keyword, everything is normally much simpler. I |
85 |
don't see how you count up "entries" here - from experience re-adding |
86 |
keywords is a lot easier than removing profile masks. |
87 |
|
88 |
|
89 |
jer |