| 1 |
Alec Warner schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:23:33 +0200 |
| 4 |
>> Dawid Węgliński <cla@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> I don't think it's ok. ~arch isn't training ground. It's supposed to |
| 7 |
>>> work, so asking arch teams to keywords packages that are not supposed |
| 8 |
>>> to work isn't good. |
| 9 |
>> We have a "testing" branch and a "stable" branch, defined by the |
| 10 |
>> KEYWORDS variable in the ebuilds. Package.masking stuff saying you're |
| 11 |
>> "testing" is at the least uninformative and highly confusing and |
| 12 |
>> unfriendly to would-be testers when in the very same context this |
| 13 |
>> already means something different (namely, it's been too short a |
| 14 |
>> while, wait one or two months for this version to go stable, as the |
| 15 |
>> ~arch keywords would suggest). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> ~arch has always been for testing ebuilds; not packages. You should |
| 18 |
> not be using ~arch to test stuff you know doesn't work; that is what |
| 19 |
> package.mask is for; to prevent users from accidentally installing |
| 20 |
> broken shit. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Why do you need package.mask here? If you know, it does not work on that arch, dont keyword it. If |
| 24 |
you know it does not work anywhere, why would you even think about adding that package? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives