1 |
On 19:18 Mon 02 Mar , Alistair Bush wrote: |
2 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
3 |
>> Combine this with package.mask. To me, experimental means masked. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Experimental within java means a lot of things, or at least it should. |
6 |
> Anything from user contributed and non-dev qa'd to packages with bundled |
7 |
> jars to attempts to package projects like maven which are difficult and |
8 |
> time consuming ( and which attempts to do so have failed numerous times |
9 |
> before might I add ). |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Asking non-dev contributors to handle package.mask's would be a "less |
12 |
> than ideal". Resulting in "interesting breakages". Currently by adding |
13 |
> java-experimental ( which might I add isn't available thru layman ) you |
14 |
> are accepting that risk. |
15 |
|
16 |
I don't understand the distinction you're making here. Either way, users |
17 |
explicitly take a manual action to enable additional experimental |
18 |
packages (unmasking or adding an overlay full of them). In fact, I see |
19 |
the separate-overlay option as worse because then you get *everything* |
20 |
from the overlay, whereas package.mask is more granular and can be |
21 |
fine-tuned per-package. |
22 |
|
23 |
Could you explain what you see as the important difference that makes |
24 |
package.mask bad and a separate overlay good? |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Thanks, |
28 |
Donnie |
29 |
|
30 |
Donnie Berkholz |
31 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
32 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |