| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> We already have an existing policy, which is option 1. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Citation? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I've been masking live ebuilds with option 2 ever since QA filed a bug |
| 9 |
telling me to - I don't think that policy was written down either. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
What is written down is: |
| 12 |
"Live" cvs.eclass ebuilds are generally only intended for the |
| 13 |
convenience of developers and should always be masked with a ~[arch] |
| 14 |
keyword. [1] |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
That would be none of the above - half the tree is "masked" with ~arch |
| 17 |
keywords. I'm not suggesting that this is the right way to do it - |
| 18 |
only that there certainly is nothing approaching a clear policy on the |
| 19 |
matter. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Rich |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
[1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1&style=printable |
Archives