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

[Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1286 bytes --]

On 11/03/2013 05:05 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> We already have an existing policy, which is option 1.
> 
> Citation?
> 
> I've been masking live ebuilds with option 2 ever since QA filed a bug
> telling me to - I don't think that policy was written down either.
> 
> What is written down is:
> "Live" cvs.eclass ebuilds are generally only intended for the
> convenience of developers and should always be masked with a ~[arch]
> keyword.   [1]
> 
> That would be none of the above - half the tree is "masked" with ~arch
> keywords.  I'm not suggesting that this is the right way to do it -
> only that there certainly is nothing approaching a clear policy on the
> matter.
> 
> Rich
> 
> [1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1&style=printable
> 

I feel that we need some way for live ebuilds to be unmasked.  For
instance, there are openstack ebuilds are available that track stable
branches in git.  These are very useful as they tend to get bugs before
a release is made.  Backporting patches is no fun.  I could see 9999
packages getting p.masked but not something like 2013.1.2.9999.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]