Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-10-08

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 974 bytes --]

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?

William

[1]
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_unpack/cvs-sources/index.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]