| 1 |
On Saturday 17 September 2005 05:59 pm, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Saturday 17 September 2005 05:28 am, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
| 4 |
> >>How about if the maintainer wants wider testing, i.e. wants to move |
| 5 |
> >>it out of package.mask and into ~arch but isn't confident it's ready |
| 6 |
> >>yet for arch, adding a string variable to ebuilds indicating why the |
| 7 |
> >>maintainer considers the package unstable, eg: |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > i really want to get away from the idea of 'package.mask is for testing |
| 10 |
> > packages' ... its current dual role as both masking 'testing' packages |
| 11 |
> > and 'broken' packages is wrong imo |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > we dont want to try reeducating our users to not be afraid of |
| 14 |
> > package.mask because a lot of things in there they *should* be afraid of |
| 15 |
> > -mike |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Why not merely add an overlay to the main tree and put the testing |
| 18 |
> packages in the overlay. Then instruct users to add the overlay to |
| 19 |
> their portage settings. Testing overlay for testing, p.mask for broken |
| 20 |
> packages. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
that does sound like a pretty quick and clean solution ... the only problem i |
| 23 |
would have with it is that when we move from testing to normal portage tree, |
| 24 |
we lose cvs history ... and we'd have to merge ChangeLogs ... |
| 25 |
-mike |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives