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 ) id 1ON0i8-0002qj-2P for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:39:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B374E0BB4; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C17E0B8E for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from marsupilami.localnet (84-238-114-252.u.parknet.dk [84.238.114.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F5F1B401D for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:39:25 +0000 (UTC) From: Thilo Bangert To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion related with dropping keywords policy Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:39:27 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.33.5; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; ) References: <1276248442.17113.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1276248442.17113.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Organization: Gentoo Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1591899.x7FuegvzUU"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201006111139.30275.bangert@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 0cf0cf9e-8ace-4c83-83fa-7a7f0b7c1d1d X-Archives-Hash: add517ab320bef4fb8ab03143115e6f0 --nextPart1591899.x7FuegvzUU Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pacho Ramos said: > Hello >=20 > Let my explain the problem and my suggestion to handle it better (at > least from my point of view) with an example: >=20 > Sometime ago I bumped bluez version from 4.39-r2 to 4.60, with that > bump, a new and *optional* RDEPEND on sys-libs/libcap-ng was added. > Since libcap-ng was not keyworded in all arches but x86 and amd64, I > had to drop keywords for bluez and open > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D303527 for handling it. >=20 > From my point of view, I would prefer to: > 1. Mask "caps" for net-wireless/bluez on affected arches, letting us to > keep bluez keyworded. > 2. Open two bug reports as done with current policy: one for keywording > libcap-ng and other to check bluez works ok with it asking arch team to > unmask that USE flag if possible. >=20 > This way to go would have the advantage of letting people running bluez > on affected arches to still get the latest bluez version instead of > still having to run a pretty old (and buggy) one. it seems to depend on turnaround time. if arch teams respond quickly, then= =20 the USE flag masking would just be an increase in workload. if they are=20 slow to respond then that may be a good investment. given that one cant dictate the speed at which arch teams work, your=20 proposal sounds very sensible. I am OK with both methods. kind regards Thilo >=20 > Thanks for considering it --nextPart1591899.x7FuegvzUU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkwSBFIACgkQxRElEoA5AneNVwCg1etgyPZ4wnLRk+HxX+QDFjVF CeIAoMEwnYXSeEGhhR8QZHQl5i5fooG3 =Apsg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1591899.x7FuegvzUU--