[gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds

2010-04-09 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
Hello! So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable by itself? If yes:

Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds

2010-04-09 Thread Krzysztof Pawlik
On 04/09/10 08:10, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Hello! So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes

Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds

2010-04-09 Thread Mark Loeser
Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org said: So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds

2010-04-09 Thread Michał Górny
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:40:50 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file collisions,

Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds

2010-04-09 Thread Ben de Groot
On 9 April 2010 21:22, Michał Górny gen...@mgorny.alt.pl wrote: In my opinion, an ebuild should be added to the tree as long as it will be useful to users. If your ebuild is WIP but you want to give some users an option to already use it or get some feedback, you could consider adding it.