From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-67070-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DEFF13877A
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:59:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 65D48E091A;
Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:59:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qa0-f50.google.com (mail-qa0-f50.google.com [209.85.216.50])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87789E08B5
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:59:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id s7so9312445qap.9
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 06:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:content-type;
bh=c2m67DZvEltam0+HI9/sKqHnuEL2zRkzx4RUU5w4o4I=;
b=nUkf7Q1l9J+YGId9TVo0AF5sOkJzCxdRmZ83genDJQh738sRksR2tHC96MtqLhMzje
NypEz4oBqpaDbvjXXZV2pexoyZsNppe39upw0dqVhRNwDURDPQ3eFwMEHO6vb9DPlcyg
STKecRZREq7RgaIO89DN4LkKTukWxwSSnd9Ct2u39J2JfeAxCVIzKc6ajsNkrnRcfbxX
/E4FEH5BZf1M2ADRQOVku0+KnCtqN5Dk+BcAT12LpSa3L/qClImsZHxe4r5Gd7yMbI89
o/+Eve3b9zYl5j8wiYhkVXukc+YNLSLaXf0rWLfN0Vrp/NsNl/KKYtalc+Ev9DLYZHNa
n/oQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.108.200 with SMTP id j66mr3585890qgf.43.1406642346238;
Tue, 29 Jul 2014 06:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
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
Sender: denis.dupeyron@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.92.7 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 06:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <pan$bda7d$e50034f1$78b6bf04$b2a47f8d@cox.net>
References: <20140727190116.B09072004E@flycatcher.gentoo.org>
<53D5F0A5.5090908@gentoo.org> <CA+CSuAJiQpsGqH-g-p_w6JiD-DezqJ6EJaNAXVVwdv9LNH4W8Q@mail.gmail.com>
<pan$bda7d$e50034f1$78b6bf04$b2a47f8d@cox.net>
From: Denis Dupeyron <calchan@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 07:58:26 -0600
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6RKVwyJ0qCo1o8tMgqXR4fLG4j4
Message-ID: <CA+CSuAJNXgZ+LHT3AgPv6yQyJG-w-KdtxUiwhKc9Ey7eRtq0Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in
media-libs/x265: x265-1.0.ebuild ChangeLog x265-1.2.ebuild x265-0.8.ebuild
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: 8e2c3497-6d62-4cb3-b7d2-74f2971288a2
X-Archives-Hash: 21bc06cbd55f59783a3db6d6814bb93a
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> AFAIK, gentoo policy is that live ebuilds should always be masked so as
> never to be automatically pulled in without a deliberate unmasking of the
> live ebuild, but whether that's masked due to lack of keywords (ebuild),
> or due to hard-mask (package.mask) is I believe up to the maintainer.
The policy apparently disappeared in the shuffling of documentation
which occurred over the years. But here is what I was instructed to
teach recruits back when I became a recruiter in 2006 or 2007, and
what competent developers have been doing since even before I was a
developer:
The package.mask file is only for temporary masking, even if more or
less long term. Anything that should be permanently masked has no
place in the tree. Live ebuilds should not be keyworded, reflecting
the fact that the code they're pulling has not be tested for any
architecture due to it being live. Moreover, live ebuilds should not
be masked as this results in unnecessary cruft in the package.mask
file.
Denis.