W dniu 03.02.2011 08:39, Torsten Veller pisze:
> * Theo Chatzimichos <email@example.com>:
>> For the record, Kacper told me today that every developer is allowed to touch
>> ppc/ppc64 profiles. Archies that don't want others to touch their profiles
>> should mention it in the devmanual. I was not aware of that, I thought that
>> !arch member is not allowed to touch arch-specific profiles.
Just to be clear I was talking about package.mask file. Kitten-forbid
you tweak e.g. make.defaults.
Honestly, I don't see the reasons why dev should be forbid to *add* pkgs
to package.mask file for other profiles that inherit base.
*Removing* is quite different, but again common sense advise you
shouldn't lift it until reason for masking is gone. That you cannot
verify if you're not an arch member.
> The situation is complicated:
> - Some arch teams don't want other devs to touch "their" profiles:
> "DON'T TOUCH THIS FILE. Instead, file a bug and assign it to..."
> But this arch is neiter mentioned in the handbook nor in the manual:
Clearly if something is written in bold and at the very top of the file
you should respect. I'm sure there are reasons for it and I've never
seen that particular arch being unresponsive.
> - The devhandbook is also kind of unmaintained.
> Devmanual and -handbook are waiting for a merge AFAIR.
> - And there is already a stalled bug about "Developer Handbook should
> document how/when to touch arch profiles' files"
> Summary: You do it wrong either way.
The problem actually boils down to asking... Arch team members are out
there on irc, have mail aliases, etc. This very thread was started due
to lack of communication. It could have looked like that:
KDE: I would like to unmask KDE-4.6.0 in base, but that requires mask in
ppc64/package.mask. Can I do it?
PPC64: Sure, go ahead.
and it would have taken approx. 30s
02-03-2011, 09:19 AM
"Andreas K. Huettel"
On Thursday 03 February 2011 10:00:11 Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> KDE: I would like to unmask KDE-4.6.0 in base, but that requires mask in
> ppc64/package.mask. Can I do it?
> PPC64: Sure, go ahead.
> and it would have taken approx. 30s
I'm really glad you are taking care of this now, it improves the situation
(Some months ago, I tried to do exactly what you suggested.
* I filed a bug,
* tried to ping the arch on irc about a week later,
* and sent two e-mails to the arch alias (as far as I remember).
None of this elicited ANY response at all. Which, understandably, leads to
some frustration if the issue could be cleared up in 30s.)
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer