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".

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.

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.


Kind regards,
     JeR