| 1 |
On 07/22/2013 01:49 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 21/07/2013 23:38, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
>>>> - consistency of tree quality |
| 4 |
>> does not apply to p.mask'd packages |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> p.mask says that the package is in _bad_ quality, explicitly, and you |
| 7 |
> can say how, so "does not apply" are not really the words I'd use. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I did not know that p.mask is used indefinitely for low quality packages |
| 11 |
and I don't like that concept. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
>>>> - less user confusion (the checksum failures alone get us a lot of bugs |
| 14 |
>>>> every release without people realizing what it means...) and people |
| 15 |
>>>> expect packages to work in the tree |
| 16 |
>> maybe |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Not p.masked packages they don't. Just state it outright, maybe even |
| 19 |
> fetch-restrict the package and warn them... |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>>>> - less bugs no one can do anything about |
| 22 |
>> does not apply |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> *How* does making it into a semi-official one-purpose overlay reduce the |
| 25 |
> number of bugs users report? Either you're banning it into a |
| 26 |
> non-Gentoo-owned overlay, or you're just betting they would get the |
| 27 |
> reason why it's not in an overlay, same applies to p.mask. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
It will reduce the number of bugs, because there will be no bugtracker, |
| 30 |
but only pull-requests. It would not be hosted on o.g.o. which means |
| 31 |
gentoo bugs are not allowed. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
>>>> - easier contribution of users in an overlay, testing of hacks or other |
| 35 |
>>>> stuff to make it work |
| 36 |
>> does not apply |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> I'm afraid I have to agree with Michael here. Proxies would do that, and |
| 39 |
> users are still free to experiment with overlaid version, I don't see |
| 40 |
> how this makes much of a difference. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Well, I actually only mentioned that point as a side effect. Until |
| 43 |
now... no one was able to provide a patch to fix one of the bugs you can |
| 44 |
read in a hundred forums and bug trackers. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
But it wouldn't make much of a difference, that's probably true. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
>>>> - making clear that gentoo does not support software with such low QA |
| 50 |
>> does not apply |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> It applies perfectly. It's a p.mask for a reason, and can convey reasons. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
It does not apply, because we still support it officially in our main |
| 56 |
tree as a distribution, no matter if it's p.masked or not. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
One could probably argue that no one cares about this difference, but |
| 59 |
it's still true. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Anyway... if people disagree, then it doesn't make much sense to remove |
| 63 |
it. Otherwise it will pop up in the tree sooner or later again. |
Archives