1 |
Ryan Hill posted on Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:30:15 -0600 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:05:44 +0000 |
4 |
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
>> > Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not |
7 |
>> > to use live ebuilds. I'd add a third if we had one. :) |
8 |
>> > |
9 |
>> Actually not. Users are already familiar with the -9999 concept so |
10 |
>> there is no point to add extra obstacles in their way. I am trying to |
11 |
>> find out corner cases where double masking makes sense. Otherwise it |
12 |
>> makes no sense to me. Actually the majority of users get confused when |
13 |
>> a package is double masked. Just drop by forums etc and you will see :) |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Again, that's the point. If you can't figure out how to get around a |
16 |
> double mask then you have no business installing live ebuilds. |
17 |
|
18 |
As a user who regularly uses certain live ebuilds (and contrasting SP), |
19 |
strongly agreed. If the double-masking is confusing them, they're better |
20 |
off sticking with standard versioned ebuilds as they're demonstrably not |
21 |
up to dealing with other difficulties which might arise with a live |
22 |
package and Gentoo doesn't need the extra bug noise. Double-masking for |
23 |
live ebuilds in the main tree thus seems to me to be the best policy. |
24 |
|
25 |
For the main tree, anyway. In overlays, I'd say it's up to the overlay |
26 |
maintainers, as in many cases, the overlays are overtly experimental |
27 |
already, and just the fact that it's in the overlay not the main tree has |
28 |
added a barrier of its own. |
29 |
|
30 |
It could also be argued whether the general main tree policy should be |
31 |
"maintainer's discretion" or not. Obviously, it's that way already in |
32 |
practice. Should we tighten up QA or make the policy overtly |
33 |
"maintainer's discretion"? |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
37 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
38 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |