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

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- 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 --]