Maybe we should ask Recruiters what most people answered to that eom-quiz question :)
I personally think no, individual ebuild devs shouldn't touch arch-profiles. They should simply drop the (broken) keywords and file a keywordreq bug for those arches. Then the arch-teams can test and eventually decide whether to keyword the package or mask the use-flag. This way it will be documented in the package's ChangeLog which is usually the first one I check and we won't pollute the profiles's ChangeLog with lots of "added, removed, added, removed" entries. Cheers, Friedrich Am Dienstag, den 12.08.2008, 12:00 -0600 schrieb Steve Dibb: > Okay, this is something that I've wondered about for a while, but need > to ask -- what is the best way (do we even have a policy) for using > package.use.mask in profiles? > > A couple of specific questions: > > If I need to mask a use flag because of use flag dependencies that won't > work on a particular arch, do I need to contact the arch teams to modify > their package.use.mask profile? If the answer is yes, I can see that as > a huge blocker since I'd have to wait on the arches to do something > before I can even put an ebuild in the tree. I realize this is a > per-arch question depending on how each one might respond, but a common > consensus would be good. > > Are there ever any cases where we could just simply put the use flag as > restricted in the global package.use.mask and then unrestrict them in > the profiles ones if, for example, it only worked on one or a few > arches? Or is the best policy always to mask it on each profile? > > As for a specific example, mplayer's dxr2/dxr3 use flag now pulls in a > dependency (media-video/em8300-libraries) which is only keyworded for > x86, ppc, and amd64. That means I'd have to mask the use flag in alpha, > hppa, ia64, ppc64 and sparc (according to repoman). I could skirt the > issue completely and just run an if statement checking if they are using > any of those three arches, but I'd prefer to do it the right way. And > not piss off any arch teams in the process. > > So I guess my question is, can individual ebuild devs freely edit > package.use.mask files in profiles? > > Steve > >
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
