[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-qa
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask
From:       Mike Frysinger <vapier () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2008-03-15 3:03:02
Message-ID: 200803142303.03033.vapier () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 14 March 2008, Alec Warner wrote:
> On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 March 2008, Steve Dibb wrote:
> >  > Because package.mask in CVS for profiles is so huge, I think it might
> >  > help it to get organized if we split it up a bit.
> >  >
> >  > halcyon had a good idea for the scheme: testing, broken, removal. 
> >  > That seems to sum up the main 3 reason that a package would be masked.
> >  >
> >  > Right now there are 679 entries in package.mask.  The reason I came up
> >  > with the idea was to find a way to make it easier for treecleaners to
> >  > quickly see which ones they were working on.
> >  >
> >  > I'd like to take the discussion to -dev but wanted to get QA's
> >  > thoughts first.  I haven't looked into whether or not this is
> >  > technically feasible at all.
> >
> > i think the real solution here is allowing masking in a package
>
> You want to add a metadata key and cache it you mean?

i dont care terribly much about the logistics, just the results.  as long as 
an ebuild can declare itself masked, it sounds good to me.

this doesnt preclude the other ideas as there are often times where you want 
to have 1 global package mask piece (like large package set bumps ... so X or 
KDE or GNOME or ...).
-mike

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]
-- 
gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]