On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > 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
As Michael already said on the very first post on this thread, you are free to touch the file is arch is slacking. -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
