Dnia 2014-09-09, o godz. 17:58:17 hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> Michał Górny: > > Dnia 2014-09-09, o godz. 17:41:27 > > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > > > >> Samuli Suominen: > >>> > >>> On 08/09/14 06:47, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > >>>> On 09/07/2014 09:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >>>>> Right now the general policy is that we don't allow unmasked (hard or > >>>>> via keywords) ebuilds in the tree if they use an scm to fetch their > >>>>> sources. There are a bunch of reasons for this, and for the most part > >>>>> they make sense. > >>>> Hard masking is a relic from the days that we didn't just have empty > >>>> keywords, most of the VCS ebuilds in the tree just have empty keywords > >>>> now and are not actually hard masked. I'd say if you set > >>>> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="**" then you get to keep the pieces. > >>> > >>> Hard masking is a relic? That's nonsense > >>> > >>> It just always has been a decision left for the developer him or herself > >>> if the masking needs a message or not (package.mask being the way > >>> to mask package with a message, empty KEYWORDS the > >>> way you don't need a message) > >>> > >> > >> Empty KEYWORDS is actually sort of a hack and basically says "doesn't > >> work on any architecture" which is certainly always wrong and hides > >> information from the user. > > > > You are incorrect. Lack of keyword means 'hell if I know whether it > > works', which is pretty much the problem with live builds. > > > > 'Does not work' is represented by minus-keyword, e.g. > > KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~x86 -*". > > > > Saying "I don't know any architecture it works on" is also certainly > almost wrong, unless the developer pushes ebuilds to the tree he has > never even tested on his own machine (or didn't even ask upstream which > architectures are supported). And how can you test a VCS ebuild? You can't assume upstream will be stuck on one commit. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
