Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:32:59
Message-Id: 1126902358.9857.6.camel@Memoria.anyarch.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting by Aron Griffis
1 On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 16:21 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
2 > Paul de Vrieze wrote:[Fri Sep 16 2005, 04:11:14PM EDT]
3 > > > Those should be in package.mask. ~arch is for candidates for arch that
4 > > > haven't yet proven themselves.
5 > >
6 > > It's often the case that those ebuilds in principle work, but there
7 > > are other reasons for not marking stable yet. Some packages for
8 > > example can have upgrade problems for stable users while being
9 > > stable for testing (by benefit of allready having passed such
10 > > upgrade problems). Masking the ebuild is not really an option
11 > > (causing testing users to go through unnecessary hoops again), while
12 > > marking stable is also no option.
13 >
14 > You're saying there's four states:
15 >
16 > package.mask
17 > ~arch
18 > ~arch candidate for arch
19 > arch
20 >
21 > Putting packages in package.mask isn't a hardship for testers. I'm
22 > not sure that's a good reason for the additional state. It's purely
23 > a matter of
24 >
25 > echo 'dev-util/mercurial' >> /etc/portage/package.unmask
26 >
27 > So far I find myself agreeing with Ciaran's idea in this thread.
28 > I don't see the point (yet) in more than three states.
29
30 His point (and it's an unfortunately valid one) as I understand it is
31 that our user base has been (mis)educated to avoid packages in p.mask
32 for fear of breaking things too badly. As such it gets an inherently far
33 smaller test base then packages in ~arch do.
34
35 Personally I am uncomfortable with people using ~arch as a "We didn't
36 get enough testing for package X, so we are putting it here for a wider
37 audience." mentality. That is the whole purpose of p.mask and released
38 independent overlays (such as fbsd and php use). Either way the use of
39 ~arch for this purpose is really just wrong.
40
41 --
42 Daniel Ostrow
43 Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
44 Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
45 dostrow@g.o
46
47 --
48 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

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