Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 19:18 Mon 02 Mar , Alistair Bush wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Could you explain what you see as the important difference that makes
package.mask bad and a separate overlay good?
Contributors sometimes have difficulty following standards (hell even
dev's do). I have little confidence that would also be able to actually
add packages to package.mask without breaking anything else.
As an example we had a contributor break the manifests of a dozen or so
packages because he updated the Copyright header then couldn't get the
ebuild to manifest. I can imagine someone committing dev-java/ant-core
to the file. That and there are 325 ebuilds [1] in java-experimental.
Masking even 1/2 of them separately would be a complete nightmare.
I also note that sunrise doesn't seem to do this either.
Also no ebuilds are ever marked stable, so it should be easy for
someone to just add an entry in their package.keywords file.
And what is stopping a user from wanting to have their own overlay, that
uses java-overlay ( or java-experimental or any other overlay )
packages. Are we to say that we shouldn't allow tools to have support
for this. I think that it is a nature progression that if we are to
allow overlays to extend the portage tree that we should allow overlays
to extend other overlays.
[1] java-experimental $ find . -iname '*.ebuild' | wc -l
