Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: package.mask vs ~arch
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 08:47:08
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch by William Hubbs
1 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:01:53PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
2 > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
3 > > A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in ~arch.
4 > > Suppose the maintainer is unable to test some aspect of the package,
5 > > or any aspect of the package? Do we want it to break completely for
6 > > ~arch? In that event, nobody will run ~arch for that package, and
7 > > then it still isn't getting tested.
8 >
9 > I'm not saying that we should just randomly throw something into ~arch
10 > without testing it, but ~arch users are running ~arch with the
11 > understanding that their systems will break from time to time and they
12 > are expected to be able to deal with it when/if it happens. ~arch is
13 > not a second stable branch.
15 Nor is it a dumping ground for something you can't be bothered to overlay.
17 > > I agree that masking for testing is like having a 3rd branch, but I'm
18 > > not convinced that this is a bad thing. ~arch should be for packages
19 > > that have received rudimentary testing and which are ready for testing
20 > > by a larger population. Masking should be used for packages that
21 > > haven't received rudimentary testing - they might not have been tested
22 > > at all.
23 >
24 > The concern with this argument is the definition of rudimentary testing
25 > is subjective, especially when a package supports many possible
26 > configurations.
28 Well it can never be fresh from upstream, even if that upstream is a
29 Gentoo developer. eudev is more of a sanity filter, and doesn't claim
30 to be upstream. If anything we want more constraints when a Gentoo dev
31 is "lead" on a project, as there are even less dykes in the way.
33 > I think some packages need wide testing before they go stable, and that
34 > is where ~arch can help out.
36 IOW some packages don't need "wide" testing, which by your yardstick, is
37 what anyone with experience/common-sense would call "a beta release."
39 > In particular, I would argue that for system-critical packages, users
40 > should be very careful about running ~arch unless they know what the
41 > fallout can be.
43 Yes, and so should Gentoo, when faced with "developers" who think
44 themselves exceptions to the rules everyone else should live by.
46 --
47 #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: package.mask vs ~arch William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>