On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:17:32 +0100 Theo Chatzimichos <tampak...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:07:09 +0100 > > Theo Chatzimichos <tampak...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> these days I am working on a puppet module for portage. For testing I > >> have created a dummy package which can be found here [1]. The package > >> installs files based on useflags, and it comes in stable, testing and > >> hardmasked versions, plus it has some useflag changes between > >> versions. With this package I can make sure that the puppet provider > >> does its various operations fine. I'm about to start writing unit > >> tests for that provider, and I would like to use that package for the > >> testing. It would be preferred to move that package in tree though. > >> Since the ebuilds are useless for everybody else, and maybe violate > >> policy about the stable tree, I'd like to know if there are any > >> objections to move it to tree. If there are none, I'll move it in one > >> month > >> > >> [1] https://github.com/gentoo-el/overlay/tree/master/app-misc/dummy > > > > To be honest, I don't mind having dummy packages in the tree. I would > > be happy to convert gentoopm sometime to use them instead of relying on > > random packages to match its criteria. > > > > However, I'd rather see them in a special category, and preferably > > prefixed with 'gentoo-' to make it least possible for any kind of name > > collisions. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Michał Górny > > > If there are more dummy packages then a separate category seems good > idea (and thanks for that), but if mine is the only case then i don't > see a reason for that Well, my main goal here is to clearly keep the package split from 'meaningful' packages. So if I listed app-misc/ for no good reason, I shall not see this package. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
