1 |
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:23:33 +0200 |
2 |
Dawid Węgliński <cla@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> I don't think it's ok. ~arch isn't training ground. It's supposed to |
5 |
> work, so asking arch teams to keywords packages that are not supposed |
6 |
> to work isn't good. |
7 |
|
8 |
We have a "testing" branch and a "stable" branch, defined by the |
9 |
KEYWORDS variable in the ebuilds. Package.masking stuff saying you're |
10 |
"testing" is at the least uninformative and highly confusing and |
11 |
unfriendly to would-be testers when in the very same context this |
12 |
already means something different (namely, it's been too short a |
13 |
while, wait one or two months for this version to go stable, as the |
14 |
~arch keywords would suggest). |
15 |
|
16 |
The same term shouldn't be used to denote two ways of masking ebuilds, |
17 |
but that's beside the point of providing good reasons to package.mask |
18 |
ebuilds. |
19 |
|
20 |
> > Even saying that it would kill puppies would be more valid. Just be |
21 |
> > honest and tell people what is going on. Tell them that if they use |
22 |
> > Opera snapshots, they shouldn't care about losing mail or experience |
23 |
> > frequent crashes while browsing. Anything really, just don't tell |
24 |
> > them you're "testing" or you find yourself excluding them from the |
25 |
> > party with a really bad excuse. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> This is the place i agree with you. Anyway i think package still |
28 |
> should be p.masked with good explanation of why it is masked. |
29 |
|
30 |
Welcome to the starting point of this thread! ;-) |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
Kind regards, |
34 |
JeR |