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

[Ben de Groot]

On 3 November 2013 03:35, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
> All,
>
> I am moving this to a new thread so the thread about agenda items does
> not get too long.
>
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 03:25:24PM -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 11/02/2013 02:52 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> * snip *
>
>> > Can we discuss and maybe vote on how we want live ebuilds in the tree? I
>> > see three possibilities:
>> >
>> > 1) empty keywords (this appears to be what most people are doing)
>> > 2) package.mask (not required, the way I see it, because of 1 and
>> > because package.mask shouldn't be permanent)
>> > 3) both package.mask and empty keywords (this would be double masking,
>> > and again shouldn't be necessary)
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>>
>> Personally, I prefer option 1.  That said, there is a reason for Options
>> 2 and 3.
>>
>> When using a minor arch, a lot of packages are not keyworded for that
>> arch, which then requires me to install them with KEYWORDS="**" and that
>> pulls in live ebuilds all the time.  Personally, I'm fine dealing with
>> things like that, but that would be a valid reason for requiring
>> package.mask.  That said, if we want to persue that, I would say that we
>> should start adding keywords to live ebuilds (~arch obviously) and
>> p.mask them so we know what arches it is expected to work on.
>
> Have you tried specifying the version of the package you want, e.g.
>
> =app-misc/foo-x.y.z **
>
> should pull in the exact version you want to test.
>
> William
>

We already have an existing policy, which is option 1.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer