On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:50:24 +0000 Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Michael Palimaka <kensing...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > With regards to bug #304435[1], we would like to formalise the policy for > > touching arch profiles' files. > > > > The key suggested points: > > > > * Archs profiles should generally only be touched by members of that arch > > team, unless prior permission is given > > > > * Exception: anyone may add a mask to an arch profile only if > > - it delays visibility of something new for that arch (eg. > > dependencies introduced in a version bump), and > > - it is not reasonable to follow the standard keyword dropping > > procedure (many other packages would be affected), and > > - the responsible arch team is not responsive > > > > * The person touching arch profiles is responsible for the subsequent > > maintenance of said entries, and any subsequent breakage. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Best regards, > > Michael > > > > [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=304435 > > > > As Tommy[D] pointed out in IRC, developers are free(wrong word?) to > touch package.use.mask for their packages but they should get an ACK > for use.mask or just tell arches to do it on their behalf. This is an > addition to what you have already said above. What about eclass-wide USE_EXPAND flags? I have recently added masks to the PYTHON_TARGETS for Python implementation not being keyworded on particular arches. With the exception of hppa which explicitly says its use.mask shouldn't be touched without permission, and now I can't enable pypy on flaggie because that arch is slacking. Great, isn't it? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
