Re: [gentoo-dev] Feature request: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Freitag 27 April 2012, 13:35:21 schrieb Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> >> * two new files in profile directories supported,
> >> package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
> >> * syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force
> >> * meaning is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force,
> >> except that the resulting rules are ONLY applied iff a stable keyword
> >> is in use
> >
> > This means that an ebuild will effectively change when moved from ~arch
> > to arch. The point of ~arch is to test ebuilds before they're moved to
> > arch.
>
> I agree that the ~arch ebuilds should be tested in the same
> configuration in which they will end up in arch. However in this case,
> the possible configurations for arch are a subset of those in ~arch, so
> the testing covers those too.

Right now, it's more likely that just before filing the stablerequest an 
ebuild is modified such that the useflag disappears and all the conditional 
codeblocks are set to a fixed value. (Compare cups-1.5.2-r3 and -r4) That 
includes a much larger danger of mistakes creeping in.

Just forcing an useflag on or off poses a fairly minimal intrusion.

> I see a problem where a significant proportion of ~arch users will have
> this flag enabled (which is obviously the point of
> package.use.stable.mask) so the arch configurations will see fewer
> testers. This issue may need to be addressed, e.g. by extending
> stabilization period or disallowing package.use.stable.mask in default
> or desktop profile.

Well, at least in some use cases the useflag will have an obvious disadvantage 
(remember the many libusb-backend bugs in cups-1.4). Then the consensus would 
have been "you can use this but it's not as bug-free", there may have been 
even an ewarn about it, ...

Cheers, 
Andreas

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@g.o
http://www.akhuettel.de/