Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 08:12:47
Message-Id: 201406301012.20652.dilfridge@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch by William Hubbs
1 Am Montag, 30. Juni 2014, 06:01:53 schrieb William Hubbs:
2 >
3 > I'm not saying that we should just randomly throw something into ~arch
4 > without testing it, but ~arch users are running ~arch with the
5 > understanding that their systems will break from time to time and they
6 > are expected to be able to deal with it when/if it happens. ~arch is
7 > not a second stable branch.
8 >
9
10 Hey William,
11
12 here's my take:
13
14 Masked commit:
15 * a part of a bigger version bump, i.e. one of many packages that need to
16 update together
17 * or something where I *know* that issues preventing normal function still
18 exist. I.e., I want to be able to ask others for testing, but something is
19 still missing and I'm actively working on it.
20
21 ~arch commit:
22 * I'm reasonably sure that it should work; it works for me.
23
24 Now, one can argue that work in progress should go into an overlay. That in my
25 opinion makes sense for e.g. kde packages and kde overlay, or qt packages and
26 qt overlay, or similar. Making a fresh overlay for one package or asking to
27 add my dev overlay for one required ebuild makes no sense.
28
29 Only my opinion...
30 Cheers, Andreas
31
32
33 --
34
35 Andreas K. Huettel
36 Gentoo Linux developer
37 dilfridge@g.o
38 http://www.akhuettel.de/

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>