On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 08:30:34PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote: > Markos Chandras <[email protected]> said: > > Hi there, > > > > The official policy for live ebuilds is the following one: > > > > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_unpack/cvs-sources/index.html > > > > I don't quite agree with this policy and I guess most of you don't agree > > either looking at the number of live ebuilds/package.mask entries. > > > > My proposal is to keep empty keywords on live ebuilds without masking > > them via package.mask > > > > Users interpret this as a 'double masking' which in fact it is since > > they need to touch two files before they are able to use the package. > > > > I also know that we can use overlays for that, but distribute the > > ebuilds among dev/proj overlays is not always a solution. > > I'm personally against such a change and would infact like to see all > live packages nuked from the tree and moved to some experimental tree. > If you move them there, I don't care what policies you apply, but we > should try to maintain a solid set of working packages in the main tree, > which no one can guarantee with a live ebuild. I know most people > aren't going to agree with me, but I felt the need to say it anyway. >
Well I think it might be a good idea to have an experimental tree with live ebuilds. It could make it far more simple to run an ~arch system and differentiate with what you need in live ebuilds. So while I'm not a dev or anything else within Gentoo, I think it's an idea worth considering. And after all, it would make this entire debate on what to do with ebuilds void as you would be specifically getting the applications from a different tree. -- Zeerak Waseem
