| 1 |
Council members, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
a policy was just pointed out to me on IRC today that I think we should |
| 4 |
look at changing with regard to how we are supposed to deal with live |
| 5 |
ebuilds. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
According to the dev manual, all live ebuilds are supposed to be put in |
| 8 |
package.mask [1]. The reality of the situation, however, is that we are |
| 9 |
mostly using empty keywords for live ebuilds. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I think the policy of requiring package.mask for live ebuilds happened |
| 12 |
before the empty keywords option was available. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Can we discuss and maybe vote on how we want live ebuilds in the tree? I |
| 15 |
see three possibilities: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
1) empty keywords (this appears to be what most people are doing) |
| 18 |
2) package.mask (not required, the way I see it, because of 1 and |
| 19 |
because package.mask shouldn't be permanent) |
| 20 |
3) both package.mask and empty keywords (this would be double masking, |
| 21 |
and again shouldn't be necessary) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thoughts? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
William |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
[1] |
| 28 |
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_unpack/cvs-sources/index.html |
Archives