Tom Wijsman: > On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 19:12:28 +0000 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> Jauhien Piatlicki: >>> >>> When I accept ~arch I expect that no live ebuilds will be built. I >>> think other gentoo users expect the same. >> >> Just because users are used to it doesn't make it better. > > How does it "make it better" for users that are used to what works well? >
It improves usability by providing additional information. >>> Emerging live ebuild usually is quite a risky thing, so hiding such >>> stuff behind dropped keywords is quite reasonable. >> >> That's why you can mask them. > > Masking is for packages that are known to be broken, not for risks. > PMS doesn't specify what exactly package.mask is for, so scm ebuilds is a perfectly valid use case, unless you can come up with an alternative that is not wrong like empty KEYWORDS. >> The same flawed logic of empty KEYWORDS could actually be applied to >> any ebuild variable. >> You say "we can't test if it works for all these architectures >> reliably and for every single commit". >> Yeah, same goes for dependencies, license and even the description. >> Because it's a live ebuild, all of them can change. KEYWORDS is no >> special exception. > > KEYWORDS is a special exception because it involves arch testing. > Yes, and you hide this information from the user.
