1 |
On 11/03/2013 03:16 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> Dnia 2013-11-03, o godz. 14:13:16 |
3 |
> Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> napisał(a): |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 11/03/2013 05:05 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
6 |
>>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
>>>>> |
8 |
>>>> |
9 |
>>>> We already have an existing policy, which is option 1. |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>> Citation? |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>>> I've been masking live ebuilds with option 2 ever since QA filed a bug |
14 |
>>> telling me to - I don't think that policy was written down either. |
15 |
>>> |
16 |
>>> What is written down is: |
17 |
>>> "Live" cvs.eclass ebuilds are generally only intended for the |
18 |
>>> convenience of developers and should always be masked with a ~[arch] |
19 |
>>> keyword. [1] |
20 |
>>> |
21 |
>>> That would be none of the above - half the tree is "masked" with ~arch |
22 |
>>> keywords. I'm not suggesting that this is the right way to do it - |
23 |
>>> only that there certainly is nothing approaching a clear policy on the |
24 |
>>> matter. |
25 |
>>> |
26 |
>>> Rich |
27 |
>>> |
28 |
>>> [1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1&style=printable |
29 |
>> |
30 |
>> I feel that we need some way for live ebuilds to be unmasked. For |
31 |
>> instance, there are openstack ebuilds are available that track stable |
32 |
>> branches in git. These are very useful as they tend to get bugs before |
33 |
>> a release is made. Backporting patches is no fun. I could see 9999 |
34 |
>> packages getting p.masked but not something like 2013.1.2.9999. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> You can do: |
37 |
> |
38 |
> <dev-python/foo-9999 ** |
39 |
> |
40 |
> in package.accept_keywords. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> |
43 |
I generally tell people to do that (except in openstack, where |
44 |
2013.1.9999 and 2013.2.9999 are very diferent :P). |
45 |
|
46 |
-- |
47 |
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |