1 |
hasufell posted on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 02:50:04 +0200 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
[Where to reply? This seems the best spot in general. Subthread is |
4 |
discussing permanent in-tree p.mask vs. overlay. The below points were |
5 |
supposed to be the pros of the overlay choice.] |
6 |
|
7 |
> On 07/22/2013 01:49 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
8 |
>> On 21/07/2013 23:38, hasufell wrote: |
9 |
>>>>> - consistency of tree quality |
10 |
>>> does not apply to p.mask'd packages |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> p.mask says that the package is in _bad_ quality, explicitly, and you |
13 |
>> can say how, so "does not apply" are not really the words I'd use. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
> I did not know that p.mask is used indefinitely for low quality packages |
16 |
> and I don't like that concept. |
17 |
|
18 |
Yes, some packages remain in-tree permanently p.masked. The mask gives a |
19 |
reason, and unmasking means users accept whatever risks or conditions you |
20 |
place in the reason. In addition to unmasking, if you REALLY want to |
21 |
discourage use, you can use some variant of the test for |
22 |
pkgname_I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING=1 trick. |
23 |
|
24 |
>>>>> - less user confusion (the checksum failures alone get us a lot of |
25 |
>>>>> bugs every release without people realizing what it means...) and |
26 |
>>>>> people expect packages to work in the tree |
27 |
>>> maybe |
28 |
>> |
29 |
>> Not p.masked packages they don't. Just state it outright, maybe even |
30 |
>> fetch-restrict the package and warn them... |
31 |
|
32 |
Absolutely. |
33 |
|
34 |
>>>>> - less bugs no one can do anything about |
35 |
>>> does not apply |
36 |
>> |
37 |
>> *How* does making it into a semi-official one-purpose overlay reduce |
38 |
>> the number of bugs users report? Either you're banning it into a |
39 |
>> non-Gentoo-owned overlay, or you're just betting they would get the |
40 |
>> reason why it's not in an overlay, same applies to p.mask. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> It will reduce the number of bugs, because there will be no bugtracker, |
43 |
> but only pull-requests. It would not be hosted on o.g.o. which means |
44 |
> gentoo bugs are not allowed. |
45 |
|
46 |
State in the p.mask that bugs will be ignored and/or that people filing |
47 |
bugs without patches will be summarily laughed at, and be done with it. |
48 |
|
49 |
>>>>> - easier contribution of users in an overlay, testing of hacks or |
50 |
>>>>> other stuff to make it work |
51 |
>>> does not apply |
52 |
>> |
53 |
>> I'm afraid I have to agree with Michael here. Proxies would do that, |
54 |
>> and users are still free to experiment with overlaid version, I don't |
55 |
>> see how this makes much of a difference. |
56 |
|
57 |
Actually, I'll give you (hasufell) this one. This is the one point I |
58 |
agree with, and it may well be enough on its own. Proxies can help, but |
59 |
IMO that's a lot of hassle to go thru for a permanently package-masked |
60 |
package. With an overlay, OTOH, non-dev volunteers can get direct access. |
61 |
|
62 |
>>>>> - making clear that gentoo does not support software with such low |
63 |
>>>>> QA |
64 |
>>> does not apply |
65 |
>> |
66 |
>> It applies perfectly. It's a p.mask for a reason, and can convey |
67 |
>> reasons. |
68 |
|
69 |
Agreed with Diego here. If the p.mask message says unsupported, don't |
70 |
file bugs or you'll be summarily laughed at... doesn't get much clearer |
71 |
than that. |
72 |
|
73 |
> Anyway... if people disagree, then it doesn't make much sense to remove |
74 |
> it. Otherwise it will pop up in the tree sooner or later again. |
75 |
|
76 |
FWIW, I wasn't strongly disagreeing with the removal to overlay or even |
77 |
full removal (I've never used the package and don't have that level of |
78 |
interest). My question was real: Given the context discussing reasons |
79 |
for removal but an intention to continue making it available in an |
80 |
overlay, I simply wondered why the in-tree p.mask option that I'd seen |
81 |
used on a few other packages apparently hadn't even been considered. |
82 |
|
83 |
Now that the option has been discussed, given you're the one that will be |
84 |
continuing the limited maintenance the package will get wherever it is, |
85 |
I've no further objection whatever you choose. |
86 |
|
87 |
-- |
88 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
89 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
90 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |