Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 04:02:06
Message-Id: 20140630040153.GA668@linux1
1 All,
3 I am starting a new thread so we don't refer to a specific package, but I
4 am quoting Rich and hasufell from the previous masking thread.
6 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
7 > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
8 > > This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then
9 > > it can as well just land in ~arch.
10 >
11 > A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in ~arch.
12 > Suppose the maintainer is unable to test some aspect of the package,
13 > or any aspect of the package? Do we want it to break completely for
14 > ~arch? In that event, nobody will run ~arch for that package, and
15 > then it still isn't getting tested.
17 I'm not saying that we should just randomly throw something into ~arch
18 without testing it, but ~arch users are running ~arch with the
19 understanding that their systems will break from time to time and they
20 are expected to be able to deal with it when/if it happens. ~arch is
21 not a second stable branch.
23 > I agree that masking for testing is like having a 3rd branch, but I'm
24 > not convinced that this is a bad thing. ~arch should be for packages
25 > that have received rudimentary testing and which are ready for testing
26 > by a larger population. Masking should be used for packages that
27 > haven't received rudimentary testing - they might not have been tested
28 > at all.
30 The concern with this argument is the definition of rudimentary testing
31 is subjective, especially when a package supports many possible
32 configurations.
34 I think some packages need wide testing before they go stable, and that
35 is where ~arch can help out.
37 In particular, I would argue that for system-critical packages, users
38 should be very careful about running ~arch unless they know what the
39 fallout can be.
41 *snip*
43 > I guess the question is, what exactly are we trying to fix? Even if
44 > occasionally a maintainer drops the ball and leaves something masked
45 > for a year, how is that different from a maintainer dropping the ball
46 > and not adding a new release to the main tree for a year? Would we be
47 > better off if Docker 1 wasn't in the tree at all? If it happened to
48 > have a known issue would ~arch users be better off if some other dev
49 > came along and helpfully added it to the tree unmasked no realizing
50 > that somebody else was already working on it?
52 Take a look at profiles/package.mask. You will see many packages in
53 there with the description, "masked for testing" on their masks, with no
54 bug references, that have been there for multiple years. My view is we
55 should either get those masks resolved or boot the affected
56 packages/versions out of the tree. If they haven't received rudimentary
57 testing by now, it is pretty obvious that no one cares about them.
59 William


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch hasufell <hasufell@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
[gentoo-dev] Re: package.mask vs ~arch "Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>