[gentoo-project] rfc: live ebuilds, masking in p.mask or with empty keywords

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1498 bytes --]

All,

I am moving this to a new thread so the thread about agenda items does
not get too long.

On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 03:25:24PM -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 11/02/2013 02:52 PM, William Hubbs wrote:

* snip *

> > 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.

Have you tried specifying the version of the package you want, e.g.

=app-misc/foo-x.y.z **

should pull in the exact version you want to test.

William


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