On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:11:53PM +0000, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> The official policy for live ebuilds is the following one:
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_unpack/cvs-sources/index.html
>
> I don't quite agree with this policy and I guess most of you don't agree
> either looking at the number of live ebuilds/package.mask entries.
>
> My proposal is to keep empty keywords on live ebuilds without masking
> them via package.mask
>
> Users interpret this as a 'double masking' which in fact it is since
> they need to touch two files before they are able to use the package.
I agree. Forcing the users to add ${P} ** in their keywords is enough,
it states that "they're on their own".
> I also know that we can use overlays for that, but distribute the
> ebuilds among dev/proj overlays is not always a solution.
+1
for big projects like KDE, overlays are a better place, but for small
packages, they are overkill.
--
Alex Alexander | wired
+ Gentoo Linux Developer
++ www.linuxized.com
11-21-2010, 01:29 PM
Diego Elio Pettenò
Change policy about live ebuilds
Il giorno dom, 21/11/2010 alle 13.11 +0000, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
>
> My proposal is to keep empty keywords on live ebuilds without masking
> them via package.mask
The reason why many of them are in p.mask is usually because _I_ added
them there as they didn't mask with KEYWORDS="", and simply dropping
keywords would have users angry.
>
> Users interpret this as a 'double masking' which in fact it is since
> they need to touch two files before they are able to use the package.
Fine by me, but the problem remains that users won't know _why_ the
package is masked, way too many times.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/
11-21-2010, 01:34 PM
Markos Chandras
Change policy about live ebuilds
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 03:29:10PM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno dom, 21/11/2010 alle 13.11 +0000, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
> >
> > My proposal is to keep empty keywords on live ebuilds without masking
> > them via package.mask
>
> The reason why many of them are in p.mask is usually because _I_ added
> them there as they didn't mask with KEYWORDS="", and simply dropping
> keywords would have users angry.
This is the alternative approach. Retain the keywords and mask the
package which doesn't look that safe in case you have both a normal
version and a live ebuild masked. Then users should pay extra attention
which version they unmask.
> >
> > Users interpret this as a 'double masking' which in fact it is since
> > they need to touch two files before they are able to use the package.
>
> Fine by me, but the problem remains that users won't know _why_ the
> package is masked, way too many times.
I don't understand that. The default policy would be empty keywords. If
you need to mask a live ebuild using package.mask because e.g master
branch is terribly broken or whatever then it makes sense. But I am not
sure I understand what you are saying :-)
>
> --
> Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
>
> If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
> it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/
>
>
On 11/21/10 15:29, Diego Elio Petten wrote:
> The reason why many of them are in p.mask is usually because _I_ added
> them there as they didn't mask with KEYWORDS="", and simply dropping
> keywords would have users angry.
Why does KEYWORDS="" on live ebuilds make users angry?
Where can I find the rest of this thread?
Where can I find documentation of the _current_ policy?
Change policy about live ebuilds
