On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:33:04 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a distribution we should strive to make as many packages available
with as many features as possible on as many architectures (or indeed
operating systems) as possible.[1] Not communicating important changes
in ebuilds to
Steve Dibb kirjoitti:
Are there ever any cases where we could just simply put the use flag as
restricted in the global package.use.mask and then unrestrict them in
the profiles ones if, for example, it only worked on one or a few
arches? Or is the best policy always to mask it on each
Friedrich Oslage kirjoitti:
Maybe we should ask Recruiters what most people answered to that
eom-quiz question :)
I have been instructing people to adjust the files themselves. The
changes affect only the package in question and as such it falls under
the responsibility of the maintainer of
Okay, this is something that I've wondered about for a while, but need
to ask -- what is the best way (do we even have a policy) for using
package.use.mask in profiles?
A couple of specific questions:
If I need to mask a use flag because of use flag dependencies that won't
work on a
Maybe we should ask Recruiters what most people answered to that
eom-quiz question :)
I personally think no, individual ebuild devs shouldn't touch
arch-profiles. They should simply drop the (broken) keywords and file a
keywordreq bug for those arches. Then the arch-teams can test and
eventually
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 12:00 -0600, Steve Dibb wrote:
Okay, this is something that I've wondered about for a while, but need
to ask -- what is the best way (do we even have a policy) for using
package.use.mask in profiles?
A couple of specific questions:
If I need to mask a use flag
