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: 1699 bytes --]

On 11/03/2013 03:16 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-11-03, o godz. 14:13:16
> Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> 
>> 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.
> 
> You can do:
> 
>   <dev-python/foo-9999 **
> 
> in package.accept_keywords.
> 
> 
I generally tell people to do that (except in openstack, where
2013.1.9999 and 2013.2.9999 are very diferent :P).

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


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