| 1 |
On Friday 16 September 2005 04:25 pm, Daniel Ostrow wrote: |
| 2 |
> His point (and it's an unfortunately valid one) as I understand it is |
| 3 |
> that our user base has been (mis)educated to avoid packages in p.mask |
| 4 |
> for fear of breaking things too badly. As such it gets an inherently far |
| 5 |
> smaller test base then packages in ~arch do. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
i [rightly] fear package.mask packages most of the time. we stick things in |
| 8 |
there that have security issues, or are known to be badly broken in some way, |
| 9 |
or wont work in subprofiles for archs (think glibc-specific packages masked |
| 10 |
in a uclibc profile). at the sametime, we use package.mask for things that |
| 11 |
*should* work fine, but we dont know yet. i wouldnt mind a restricted 4th |
| 12 |
level of masking here: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
arch stable |
| 15 |
~arch unstable |
| 16 |
?arch should work fine, but not 100% sure yet |
| 17 |
package.mask known to be broken in some way |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
it's also a pita to maintain package.mask since we're storing information |
| 20 |
about specific ebuilds outside of the ebuild itself, and it tends to suffer |
| 21 |
badly from bitrot |
| 22 |
-mike |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives