Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:46:52
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting by Daniel Ostrow
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.
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:
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
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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>