Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: live ebuilds, masking in p.mask or with empty keywords

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 2013-11-03, o godz. 14:13:16
Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> napisał(a):

> On 11/03/2013 05:05 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >> We already have an existing policy, which is option 1.
> >
> > Citation?
> >
> > I've been masking live ebuilds with option 2 ever since QA filed a bug
> > telling me to - I don't think that policy was written down either.
> >
> > What is written down is:
> > "Live" cvs.eclass ebuilds are generally only intended for the
> > convenience of developers and should always be masked with a ~[arch]
> > keyword.   [1]
> >
> > That would be none of the above - half the tree is "masked" with ~arch
> > keywords.  I'm not suggesting that this is the right way to do it -
> > only that there certainly is nothing approaching a clear policy on the
> > matter.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > [1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1&style=printable
>
> I feel that we need some way for live ebuilds to be unmasked.  For
> instance, there are openstack ebuilds are available that track stable
> branches in git.  These are very useful as they tend to get bugs before
> a release is made.  Backporting patches is no fun.  I could see 9999
> packages getting p.masked but not something like 2013.1.2.9999.

You can do:

  <dev-python/foo-9999 **

in package.accept_keywords.


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny