Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Elfyn McBratney <beu@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:41:28
Message-Id: 20050917063909.GC7663@zippy.emcb.local
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting by Aron Griffis
1 On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:16:22PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
2 > Vapier wrote:[Fri Sep 16 2005, 03:15:26PM EDT]
3 > > not really ... sometimes you want to keep a package in unstable
4 > > forever (like the cvs snapshots i make of e17), or until you work
5 > > some quirks/features out for a new revbump which you would want
6 > > stable
7 >
8 > Why wouldn't you put these in package.mask?
9
10 Why would you ? ;) If package foo isn't known to be broken, or known to
11 break other packages, and generally just works(tm), why make it just that
12 little bit harder for other people to test it ?
13
14 Forgetting that it's just one extra step to take before emerging (adding
15 an atom for package to /etc/portage/p.unmask), in addition to adding an
16 atom for it to /etc/portage/p.keywords also, there's also the fact that
17 package.mask is a dumping ground for packages that fit one (or more) of
18 the following:
19
20 * is vulnerable to exploitation and the like, or;
21 * is broken on some level (crashes, munched goldfish, ..); or
22 * requires extensive testing with the rest of the system i.e.,
23 could _completely_ break ones install.
24
25 In other words, it's unstable, and many users (including myself) stay
26 away from packages therein.
27
28 So, the question is: when did ~arch and packake.mask become synonymous ?
29
30 Best,
31 Elfyn
32
33 --
34 Elfyn McBratney
35 beu/irc.freenode.net http://dev.gentoo.org/~beu/
36 +------------O.o--------------------- http://dev.gentoo.org/~beu/pubkey.asc
37
38 PGP Key ID: 0x69DF17AD
39 PGP Key Fingerprint:
40 DBD3 B756 ED58 B1B4 47B9 B3BD 8D41 E597 69DF 17AD