Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-10-08
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:52:23
Message-Id: 20131102185217.GA32534@linux1
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-10-08 by "Andreas K. Huettel"
1 Council members,
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.
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.
11 I think the policy of requiring package.mask for live ebuilds happened
12 before the empty keywords option was available.
14 Can we discuss and maybe vote on how we want live ebuilds in the tree? I
15 see three possibilities:
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)
23 Thoughts?
25 William
27 [1]


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature