It would be useful if there were a default /etc/portage/package.keywords file, explaining the purpose of the file and they syntax. I have written a sample file, which you are welcome to use; I will include it.
Created attachment 28169 [details] Proposed default /etc/portage/package.keywords I wasn't sure what to call ~ARCH and ARCH, so I called them "stable" and "testing". That may need to be changed.
thats what the manpage is for, `man portage`
Plus default files mean that etc-update catches it, making it possible for users to overwrite their /etc/portage files. #41658 is working on better documentation for /etc/portage, hopefully improving the visibility of /etc/portage to the userbase.
I think it's right not to create /etc/portage/package.keywords etc., but IMO package.keywords.example and so on would be useful. Quite a few people complain they can't use package.keywords as this file doesn't exist on their systems.
I protest -- requesting reopening of bug, because this is basic meaning behind / compromise. And propose a possible compromise for the issue of etc-update screwing with things. provide /etc/portage/package.keywords.example /etc/portage/package.use.example /etc/portage/package.mask.example /etc/portage/package.unmask.example ********** screw man portage, and any documentation that is too long to see on one screen. Yay system exploration, and the discoverable user interface. I will create a duplicate of this bug if it is not reopened in a few days, as it is very important to me, and I believe to many peoples use of Gentoo. If this stops 4 /etc/portage questions per day on IRC, it will pay for itself.. in ... like 5 days. ***************** /etc/portage/package.keywords.example #add or remove arches (x86 sparc amd64 ppc ppc64 etc) #[operator] pkg-grp/pkg-name[version-number] arch ~arch -arch -~arch /etc/portage/package.use.example # operator can be = >= or <= # useflags are -useflags or useflags (no +'s) #[operator] pkg-grp/pkg-name[version-number] useflags -flagsnotwanted #yada yada /etc/portage/package.mask.example #yada yada /etc/portage/package.unmask.example #fill in to override /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask #by copying the related line into this file
At the very least we should create the /etc/portage directory, a lot of users are confused by the fact that it doesn't exist by default.
Is there any developer policy on configuration files (when they should exist, what they should contain, comments, etc.)? I was looking for this after I originally filed the bug, and I couldn't find any. I think that the creation of that sort of policy would go a long way towards fixing these sorts of issues.
policy is to let package maintainers maintain their package as they see fit
it's a shame this was voted down; I was just about to post another request for this when I found this marked as wontfix.
