1 |
Rich Freeman: |
2 |
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:12 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> Also, those masks are rarely short-term in practice, because well, see |
4 |
>> this thread. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Is there any evidence to support this statement? You only notice |
7 |
> masks when they're a problem, and these kinds of masks tend to be a |
8 |
> problem only if they're long-term. |
9 |
> |
10 |
|
11 |
Yeah, I'v been collecting and analyzing data over the years to come up |
12 |
with the results just now ;) |
13 |
|
14 |
I was just giving my own perception of things. |
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
>> Developer overlays are widely used. So yes, ~arch users will be testing |
18 |
>> it, probably even arch users. It also limits the potential damage for |
19 |
>> the user, because he can very easily toss out the crap by just |
20 |
>> removing/masking the whole overlay instead of going on adventure reading |
21 |
>> broken portage output. |
22 |
>> |
23 |
> |
24 |
> If I want three users following a bug to test something, it is far |
25 |
> easier to tell them to just unmask it than to tell them to go install |
26 |
> my developer overlay. Also, right now you can't easily pull in just |
27 |
> one package from an overlay, so they get the benefit of installing |
28 |
> whatever else is in my overlay. |
29 |
> |
30 |
|
31 |
'layman -a overlay && flaggie foo +~amd64 && emerge -av1 foo' can be |
32 |
easier than figuring out masks that maybe even go across multiple |
33 |
dependencies (need to remind anyone of multilib masks and how screwed |
34 |
anyone was/is who mixes only a few ~arch packages with arch?). |
35 |
|
36 |
Also, pulling in just one package from an overlay is almost the same as |
37 |
unmasking a tree ebuild. |
38 |
|
39 |
> And as I stated previously creating an overlay for one package is |
40 |
> unnecessary work. |
41 |
> |
42 |
|
43 |
For single packages, you use your developer overlay. For more complex |
44 |
things like multilib, you create a separate one. |
45 |
|
46 |
> I'm not saying that we should be leaving stuff in the tree for six |
47 |
> months for "testing" - just that there are cases where it can be |
48 |
> convenient to have a short-term mask. |
49 |
|
50 |
This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then |
51 |
it can as well just land in ~arch. |
52 |
|
53 |
If it's not expected to be short-term, then I cannot follow the argument. |