* Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-10-08
2013-11-02 18:52 ` William Hubbs
@ 2013-11-02 19:03 ` Agostino Sarubbo
2013-11-02 19:25 ` Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
2013-11-02 21:24 ` [gentoo-project] " William Hubbs
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Agostino Sarubbo @ 2013-11-02 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Saturday 02 November 2013 13:52:17 William Hubbs wrote:
> 1) empty keywords (this appears to be what most people are doing)
> 2) package.mask (not required, the way I see it, because of 1 and
> because package.mask shouldn't be permanent)
> 3) both package.mask and empty keywords (this would be double masking,
> and again shouldn't be necessary)
>
> Thoughts?
The goal is avoid to install them without any type of interactions. I guess
empty keywords respect that and at the same time avoid us to write the
package.mask file.
--
Agostino Sarubbo
Gentoo Linux Developer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-10-08
2013-11-02 18:52 ` William Hubbs
2013-11-02 19:03 ` Agostino Sarubbo
@ 2013-11-02 19:25 ` Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
2013-11-04 0:37 ` [gentoo-project] " Jonathan Callen
2013-11-02 21:24 ` [gentoo-project] " William Hubbs
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina @ 2013-11-02 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/02/2013 02:52 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> Council members,
>
> a policy was just pointed out to me on IRC today that I think we should
> look at changing with regard to how we are supposed to deal with live
> ebuilds.
>
> According to the dev manual, all live ebuilds are supposed to be put in
> package.mask [1]. The reality of the situation, however, is that we are
> mostly using empty keywords for live ebuilds.
>
> I think the policy of requiring package.mask for live ebuilds happened
> before the empty keywords option was available.
>
> Can we discuss and maybe vote on how we want live ebuilds in the tree? I
> see three possibilities:
>
> 1) empty keywords (this appears to be what most people are doing)
> 2) package.mask (not required, the way I see it, because of 1 and
> because package.mask shouldn't be permanent)
> 3) both package.mask and empty keywords (this would be double masking,
> and again shouldn't be necessary)
>
> Thoughts?
Personally, I prefer option 1. That said, there is a reason for Options
2 and 3.
When using a minor arch, a lot of packages are not keyworded for that
arch, which then requires me to install them with KEYWORDS="**" and that
pulls in live ebuilds all the time. Personally, I'm fine dealing with
things like that, but that would be a valid reason for requiring
package.mask. That said, if we want to persue that, I would say that we
should start adding keywords to live ebuilds (~arch obviously) and
p.mask them so we know what arches it is expected to work on.
>
> William
>
> [1]
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_unpack/cvs-sources/index.html
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=lnIf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-10-08
2013-11-02 19:25 ` Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
@ 2013-11-04 0:37 ` Jonathan Callen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Callen @ 2013-11-04 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 11/02/2013 03:25 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
> When using a minor arch, a lot of packages are not keyworded for that arch, which then requires
> me to install them with KEYWORDS="**" and that pulls in live ebuilds all the time. Personally,
> I'm fine dealing with things like that, but that would be a valid reason for requiring
> package.mask.
Just as a FYI, to get the "stable or testing on any arch" semantics that are probably what you
want, instead of "completely ignore keywords" which is what "**" gets you, you can use
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="* ~*" (or the equivalent in package.accept_keywords). "*" means "stable
anywhere", "~*" means "testing anywhere", so by including both, you match everything except empty
keywords (and the nearly meaningless "-*" keywords).
- --
Jonathan Callen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJSduwxAAoJELHSF2kinlg4JP4QAK+267ptNky01+0i3p+4xQde
UNaD3lajCHNlv3RDy0oaB8yx3Qz2Ox3ZWPJc4sGJs+L3VWc3okRI8pKyHmbx7Kl7
/QCdSF7j71kNFl2h1NqMLkJLewlwRbVwYmH4YlSMJMPIPaoK4j2ZA9F6YFpBoofI
OKzL5Q06ch7lJwydkkafnzD/ohPn2RSUytHypZlCsmR+uQVFk2qssiYHQdHcc27k
rXhWElxQmZ+Lxr2/2AoxowEYcQfYhHbm9jUy16K1EcHvlKIW9QRLv9w57+ve2SSY
8xs5GGl1sBOjjipibCVfKqcoeyBNR4u8b3ffde3NpFC2z+yFVALxUR0HEGLsZ310
ce1CfhESVePGmrypWlxjzqMJxnUQoiWAHR/ZoywRZWArnPo0qX5jltQojh+4B87x
PdhpzKWtcfQm+dwNkJQMoUZo96H85LgVwLU6loi7T4RoFmCS2PhpxjQbtHFMUQIQ
g2qXXtMQuSXN0PIXRAIPONdBteRkNpPYqmf3jjfD0z2YwEdJXBm0JyTCEJ5T+i54
uLpM8a0Vmc8vs1gEnbTpuIj6GV3/RqYkdfU1qB8QPebj7IYFYRC2XhhEy+KoopaV
ba/TusZwyp45a+wUlcSTpPhQe9o63TZasoUkwOkxp6SwmjyhO6XeNxoV1DZTTdQa
spaKxDaPF8fEBttacZQz
=mYxH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-10-08
2013-11-02 18:52 ` William Hubbs
2013-11-02 19:03 ` Agostino Sarubbo
2013-11-02 19:25 ` Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
@ 2013-11-02 21:24 ` William Hubbs
2013-11-02 23:50 ` Markos Chandras
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: William Hubbs @ 2013-11-02 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1241 bytes --]
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 01:52:17PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> Council members,
>
> a policy was just pointed out to me on IRC today that I think we should
> look at changing with regard to how we are supposed to deal with live
> ebuilds.
>
> According to the dev manual, all live ebuilds are supposed to be put in
> package.mask [1]. The reality of the situation, however, is that we are
> mostly using empty keywords for live ebuilds.
>
> I think the policy of requiring package.mask for live ebuilds happened
> before the empty keywords option was available.
>
> Can we discuss and maybe vote on how we want live ebuilds in the tree? I
> see three possibilities:
>
> 1) empty keywords (this appears to be what most people are doing)
> 2) package.mask (not required, the way I see it, because of 1 and
> because package.mask shouldn't be permanent)
> 3) both package.mask and empty keywords (this would be double masking,
> and again shouldn't be necessary)
Ok folks, we were talking about this on #g-council, and there actually
is a bug about this that would resolve the issue, so we don't need this
on the agenda [1].
Sorry for the noise.
William
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421993
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-10-08
2013-11-02 21:24 ` [gentoo-project] " William Hubbs
@ 2013-11-02 23:50 ` Markos Chandras
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Markos Chandras @ 2013-11-02 23:50 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On 11/02/2013 09:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 01:52:17PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>> Council members,
>>
>> a policy was just pointed out to me on IRC today that I think we should
>> look at changing with regard to how we are supposed to deal with live
>> ebuilds.
>>
>> According to the dev manual, all live ebuilds are supposed to be put in
>> package.mask [1]. The reality of the situation, however, is that we are
>> mostly using empty keywords for live ebuilds.
>>
>> I think the policy of requiring package.mask for live ebuilds happened
>> before the empty keywords option was available.
>>
>> Can we discuss and maybe vote on how we want live ebuilds in the tree? I
>> see three possibilities:
>>
>> 1) empty keywords (this appears to be what most people are doing)
>> 2) package.mask (not required, the way I see it, because of 1 and
>> because package.mask shouldn't be permanent)
>> 3) both package.mask and empty keywords (this would be double masking,
>> and again shouldn't be necessary)
>
> Ok folks, we were talking about this on #g-council, and there actually
> is a bug about this that would resolve the issue, so we don't need this
> on the agenda [1].
>
> Sorry for the noise.
>
> William
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421993
>
package.mask means "the package may or may not work which is true for
live ebuilds"
KEYWORDS="" means "the package may or may not work on $ARCH" which is
true for live ebuilds
So they are two different kind of maskings and they are both valid to me.
--
Regards,
Markos Chandras
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread