Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Christian Parpart <trapni@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] apache and ~arch
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:39:15
Message-Id: 200503141639.04696.trapni@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] apache and ~arch by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Monday 14 March 2005 3:43 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:24:41 -0600 Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o>
3 > wrote:
4 > | However, I don't believe that ~arch should be used for ebuilds
5 > | that one _knows_ have broken functionality. For such cases we
6 > | have package.mask.
7 >
8 > Indeed. It's in the developer docs and it's in the quiz. And yet...
9 >
10 > http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/hollow/2005/03/14/apache_dithering
11
12 He still does great work. So, please don't stick on words written down in hot
13 times.
14
15 > > I can understand that breaking the system isn't a very good idea and
16 > > people will complain, but this does not count for the testing branch.
17 >
18 > *sigh* Er, no. If you *know* it's broken, don't stick it in ~arch. If
19 > it has no known issues, but hasn't been widely tested, then ~arch is
20 > fine, but not if it's completely h0rked.
21
22 FYI, mod_php wasn't "completely borked". It's just not been unmasked at the
23 same time as the others went out of the hardmask state.
24
25 > For how long have these people been developers and who were their
26 > mentors? I'm starting to think that this wasn't a simple mistake --
27 > rather, that it's a complete misunderstanding of what the different
28 > KEYWORDS levels mean...
29
30 I - in my case - have learned my lessons from this - who cares.
31
32 Regards,
33 Christian Parpart.
34
35 --
36 Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
37 16:27:26 up 136 days, 8:57, 1 user, load average: 0.12, 0.21, 0.24