Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Installation:
Gentoo Handbook
Installation Docs

Documentation:
Home
Listing
About Gentoo
Philosophy
Social Contract

Resources:
Bug Tracker
Developer List
Discussion Forums
Gentoo BitTorrents
Gentoo Linux Enhancement Proposals
IRC Channels
Mailing Lists
Mirrors
Name and Logo Guidelines
Online Package Database
Security Announcements
Staffing Needs
Supporting Vendors
View our CVS

Graphics:
Logos and themes
Icons
ScreenShots

Miscellaneous Resources:
Gentoo Linux Store
Gentoo-hosted projects
IBM dW/Intel article archive




List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o>
Subject: Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:06:41 +0200
Alec Warner schrieb:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:23:33 +0200
>> Dawid Węgliński <cla@g.o> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> We have a "testing" branch and a "stable" branch, defined by the
>> KEYWORDS variable in the ebuilds. Package.masking stuff saying you're
>> "testing" is at the least uninformative and highly confusing and
>> unfriendly to would-be testers when in the very same context this
>> already means something different (namely, it's been too short a
>> while, wait one or two months for this version to go stable, as the
>> ~arch keywords would suggest).
> 
> ~arch has always been for testing ebuilds; not packages.  You should
> not be using ~arch to test stuff you know doesn't work; that is what
> package.mask is for; to prevent users from accidentally installing
> broken shit.
> 

Why do you need package.mask here? If you know, it does not work on that arch, dont keyword it. If
you know it does not work anywhere, why would you even think about adding that package?


-- 
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer

Attachment:
signature.asc (OpenPGP digital signature)
Replies:
Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
-- Alec Warner
References:
Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
-- Jeroen Roovers
Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
-- Alec Warner
Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
-- Jeroen Roovers
Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
-- Dawid Węgliński
Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
-- Jeroen Roovers
Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
-- Alec Warner
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
Next by thread:
Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
Previous by date:
Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
Next by date:
Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=set for meta-packages that should behave like package sets (revised)


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Donate to support our development efforts.

Gentoo Centric Hosting: vr.org

VR Hosted

Tek Alchemy

Tek Alchemy

SevenL.net

SevenL.net

php|architect

php|architect

Copyright 2001-2007 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Email www@gentoo.org.