Finn Thain wrote:
> In general, it would then be safer for a stable end-user to do the
> occasional emerge from ~ppc-macos (an idea I like a lot), and it would
> mean that devs did not have to uniformly adopt ~ppc-macos (which is is not
> great for QA), and it would mean one less reason to drop the ppc-macos
> keyword (I'm trying criticise that proposal constructively, as I realise
> that its motivation is important.)
Let me quote a message from -dev:
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
>> On 5/9/2005 13:41:54, Jason Stubbs (email@example.com) wrote:
>>>On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote:
>>>>Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>>>If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of
>>>>>package.mask. ~arch means "candidate for going stable after more
>>>>>testing", not "might work".
>>>>It's a bit of both. When you put a package into ~arch, it's in
>>>>"testing", so that says it needs further "testing" since there still
>>>>could be a not yet discovered bug, right?
>>>Testing of the ebuild rather than of the package, though. This is the
>>>point where people sometimes get confused.
>> That'd be me then :)
>> So we're talking about correctness of ebuilds (correct dependencies,
>> use flag logic etc) and not whether the package actually works in depth.
>> The latter is what caused me to suggest drawing together a large team of
>> user-testers managed by arch-team devs. Correctness of ebuilds takes
>> us back to a dev role and the ebuild quiz, since it's necessary to
>> understand ebuilds to criticise them.
> After a rather heated discussion a while back, I came up with this
> - -arch :: the end-user software is/might be flakey
> ~arch :: the ebuild is/might be flakey but the software is good
> arch :: its all good :)
I was/am one of the people to have the misconception that ~arch means
the ebuild is fine (why else do I test it for in any possible situation)
but the software may be buggy.
The only difference between ~arch and arch is that the ebuild might
suck! Now it suddenly makes sense that such ebuild is being stabled
after 30 days, because the assumption is there that the software being
installed itself is stable, as upstream called it stable.
Now I don't think this particular quote should be taken as 'the law',
but it nicely shows that even on the base of Gentoo, the correct
interpretation for ~arch and arch is not really known.
Gentoo for Mac OS X
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list