| 1 |
On 19:18 Mon 02 Mar , Alistair Bush wrote: |
| 2 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Combine this with package.mask. To me, experimental means masked. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Experimental within java means a lot of things, or at least it should. |
| 6 |
> Anything from user contributed and non-dev qa'd to packages with bundled |
| 7 |
> jars to attempts to package projects like maven which are difficult and |
| 8 |
> time consuming ( and which attempts to do so have failed numerous times |
| 9 |
> before might I add ). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Asking non-dev contributors to handle package.mask's would be a "less |
| 12 |
> than ideal". Resulting in "interesting breakages". Currently by adding |
| 13 |
> java-experimental ( which might I add isn't available thru layman ) you |
| 14 |
> are accepting that risk. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I don't understand the distinction you're making here. Either way, users |
| 17 |
explicitly take a manual action to enable additional experimental |
| 18 |
packages (unmasking or adding an overlay full of them). In fact, I see |
| 19 |
the separate-overlay option as worse because then you get *everything* |
| 20 |
from the overlay, whereas package.mask is more granular and can be |
| 21 |
fine-tuned per-package. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Could you explain what you see as the important difference that makes |
| 24 |
package.mask bad and a separate overlay good? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
Donnie |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 31 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 32 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
Archives