From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-40669-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1O0JmD-0001nT-B4
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:22:01 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 00E54E0872;
	Fri,  9 Apr 2010 19:21:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-fx0-f212.google.com (mail-fx0-f212.google.com [209.85.220.212])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15913E0867
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri,  9 Apr 2010 19:21:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by fxm4 with SMTP id 4so3184952fxm.26
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.40.136 with SMTP id k8mr495988fae.24.1270840907940;
        Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pomiot.lan (87-205-68-138.adsl.inetia.pl [87.205.68.138])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm3535168fks.23.2010.04.09.12.21.46
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Spam Box <spambox@mgorny.alt.pl>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:22:04 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= <gentoo@mgorny.alt.pl>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds
Message-ID: <20100409212204.13f587a2@pomiot.lan>
In-Reply-To: <s2y8b4c83ad1004090010l905d38efge4243cecf0ece63a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <s2y8b4c83ad1004090010l905d38efge4243cecf0ece63a@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1;
 boundary="Sig_/yNSHyxz_ab_q8NMwABRazpO"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Archives-Salt: 2c4f60fa-dda2-4aed-80ce-02035c1617a0
X-Archives-Hash: ac72ca445fa7ba39bb79079938120cd6

--Sig_/yNSHyxz_ab_q8NMwABRazpO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:40:50 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:

> So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a
> best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they
> are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file
> collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable
> by itself?

In my opinion, an ebuild should be added to the tree as long as it will
be useful to users. If your ebuild is WIP but you want to give some
users an option to already use it or get some feedback, you could
consider adding it.

Moreover, I wouldn't take dependency-related issues as a reason to mask
the ebuild. As long as it's not going to hurt users' system or (if it's
an version bump) replace working version with non-working one, it
doesn't need the mask.

So, it all depends on how useful the ebuild is, and how dangerous it
can become. If it just misses some polishes, it's acceptable -- as long
as you're going to maintain it and fix all the known issues ASAP.

Please notice that this is no official statement but only my personal
opinion on the topic.

--=20
Best regards,
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny

<http://mgorny.alt.pl>
<xmpp:mgorny@jabber.ru>

--Sig_/yNSHyxz_ab_q8NMwABRazpO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAku/fmEACgkQnGSe5QXeB7v+IgCgzuD1Bw85EnkxzxgZT6q8hzYk
c+4AnjMSGfCcol2ls6sjBJcJlT4+/MC1
=SZ5B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/yNSHyxz_ab_q8NMwABRazpO--