Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn" <chithanh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Feature request: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:36:52
Message-Id: 4F9A8479.80301@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Feature request: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force by Ciaran McCreesh
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
>> * two new files in profile directories supported, >> package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force >> * syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force >> * meaning is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force, >> except that the resulting rules are ONLY applied iff a stable keyword >> is in use > This means that an ebuild will effectively change when moved from ~arch > to arch. The point of ~arch is to test ebuilds before they're moved to > arch.
I agree that the ~arch ebuilds should be tested in the same configuration in which they will end up in arch. However in this case, the possible configurations for arch are a subset of those in ~arch, so the testing covers those too. I see a problem where a significant proportion of ~arch users will have this flag enabled (which is obviously the point of package.use.stable.mask) so the arch configurations will see fewer testers. This issue may need to be addressed, e.g. by extending stabilization period or disallowing package.use.stable.mask in default or desktop profile. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Replies