| 1 |
On 11/02/2013 09:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 01:52:17PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Council members, |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> a policy was just pointed out to me on IRC today that I think we should |
| 6 |
>> look at changing with regard to how we are supposed to deal with live |
| 7 |
>> ebuilds. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> According to the dev manual, all live ebuilds are supposed to be put in |
| 10 |
>> package.mask [1]. The reality of the situation, however, is that we are |
| 11 |
>> mostly using empty keywords for live ebuilds. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> I think the policy of requiring package.mask for live ebuilds happened |
| 14 |
>> before the empty keywords option was available. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Can we discuss and maybe vote on how we want live ebuilds in the tree? I |
| 17 |
>> see three possibilities: |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> 1) empty keywords (this appears to be what most people are doing) |
| 20 |
>> 2) package.mask (not required, the way I see it, because of 1 and |
| 21 |
>> because package.mask shouldn't be permanent) |
| 22 |
>> 3) both package.mask and empty keywords (this would be double masking, |
| 23 |
>> and again shouldn't be necessary) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Ok folks, we were talking about this on #g-council, and there actually |
| 26 |
> is a bug about this that would resolve the issue, so we don't need this |
| 27 |
> on the agenda [1]. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Sorry for the noise. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> William |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421993 |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
package.mask means "the package may or may not work which is true for |
| 36 |
live ebuilds" |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
KEYWORDS="" means "the package may or may not work on $ARCH" which is |
| 39 |
true for live ebuilds |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
So they are two different kind of maskings and they are both valid to me. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Regards, |
| 45 |
Markos Chandras |
Archives