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 -*". -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
