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 |