1 |
Alec Warner schrieb: |
2 |
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:23:33 +0200 |
4 |
>> Dawid Węgliński <cla@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>> I don't think it's ok. ~arch isn't training ground. It's supposed to |
7 |
>>> work, so asking arch teams to keywords packages that are not supposed |
8 |
>>> to work isn't good. |
9 |
>> We have a "testing" branch and a "stable" branch, defined by the |
10 |
>> KEYWORDS variable in the ebuilds. Package.masking stuff saying you're |
11 |
>> "testing" is at the least uninformative and highly confusing and |
12 |
>> unfriendly to would-be testers when in the very same context this |
13 |
>> already means something different (namely, it's been too short a |
14 |
>> while, wait one or two months for this version to go stable, as the |
15 |
>> ~arch keywords would suggest). |
16 |
> |
17 |
> ~arch has always been for testing ebuilds; not packages. You should |
18 |
> not be using ~arch to test stuff you know doesn't work; that is what |
19 |
> package.mask is for; to prevent users from accidentally installing |
20 |
> broken shit. |
21 |
> |
22 |
|
23 |
Why do you need package.mask here? If you know, it does not work on that arch, dont keyword it. If |
24 |
you know it does not work anywhere, why would you even think about adding that package? |
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Thomas Sachau |
29 |
|
30 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |