Re: [gentoo-dev] Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask

[Dawid Węgliński]

On Friday 03 of October 2008 04:14:54 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:56:39 -0700
>
> "Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote:
> > If pmask is not for testing...what is it for?
>
> The name says it all - to prevent people from automatically emerging
> stuff, even when ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~arch is set. First you try for the new
> version:
>
> # emerge -va www-client/opera
>
> which doesn't work (it gives you the current version!). Then you try
> with a specific version:
>
> # emerge -va =www-client/opera-9.6*
>
> which gives you a good reason to either unmask or not unmask:
>
> !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "=www-client/opera-9.6*" have been
> masked. !!! One of the following masked packages is required to
> complete your request:
> - www-client/opera-9.60_pre2440 (masked by: package.mask)
> /keeps/gentoo/portage/profiles/package.mask:
> # Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> (26 Aug 2008)
> # www-client/opera snapshots are masked. Please read
> # http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/
>
> - www-client/opera-9.60_pre2436 (masked by: package.mask)
> - [...]
>
> If it merely says that the masking is for "testing" (and especially if
> testing takes many months and apparently takes place in secret) the
> whole point is lost on the people who have come so far and still want to
> press on - they'll simply ignore your "warning against testing".

Same way one may see "masked by missing keyword" note and interprete as "not 
for your arch"... So a quick note in p.mask can say it is for testing 
purposes, so user can choose either to install it or not.

>
> There are various valid reasons, but testing means you want to expose
> stuff, not hide it. There's simply no way you'd package.mask something,
> and at the same time explain you want it tested. Because you're
> preventing most ~arch systems from getting automatically widely exposed
> to the stuff you're intending to get tested.

I don't think it's ok. ~arch isn't training ground. It's supposed to work, so 
asking arch teams to keywords packages that are not supposed to work isn't 
good.

>
> Even saying that it would kill puppies would be more valid. Just be
> honest and tell people what is going on. Tell them that if they use
> Opera snapshots, they shouldn't care about losing mail or experience
> frequent crashes while browsing. Anything really, just don't tell them
> you're "testing" or you find yourself excluding them from the party
> with a really bad excuse.

This is the place i agree with you. Anyway i think package still should be 
p.masked with good explanation of why it is masked.

-- 
Cheers,
Dawid Węgliński