Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
To: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:41:06
Message-Id: 53B184E3.5040902@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch by "Michał Górny"
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA256
3
4 On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Micha³ Górny wrote:
5 > Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07 Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
6 > napisa³(a):
7 >
8 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
9 >>
10 >> On 30/06/14 09:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
11 >>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs
12 >>> <williamh@g.o> wrote:
13 >>>>
14 >>>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman
15 >>>> wrote:
16 >>>>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell
17 >>>>> <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
18 >>>>>> This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be
19 >>>>>> short-term, then it can as well just land in ~arch.
20 >>>>>
21 >>>>> A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in
22 >>>>> ~arch. Suppose the maintainer is unable to test some aspect
23 >>>>> of the package, or any aspect of the package? Do we want
24 >>>>> it to break completely for ~arch? In that event, nobody
25 >>>>> will run ~arch for that package, and then it still isn't
26 >>>>> getting tested.
27 >>>>
28 >>>> I'm not saying that we should just randomly throw something
29 >>>> into ~arch without testing it, but ~arch users are running
30 >>>> ~arch with the understanding that their systems will break
31 >>>> from time to time and they are expected to be able to deal
32 >>>> with it when/if it happens. ~arch is not a second stable
33 >>>> branch.
34 >>>
35 >>> Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN
36 >>> TESTED AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and
37 >>> that is it. Or maybe they tested it in a very limited set of
38 >>> circumstances but know that other untested circumstances are
39 >>> important to the users and they have definite plans to get them
40 >>> tested.
41 >>>
42 >>
43 >>
44 >> Here's a great example of this -- dev-libs/nss-3.16-r1 is
45 >> p.masked by me for testing, because when I converted it to
46 >> multilib i needed to change the way it does some internal ABI
47 >> determination tests, and although I know it does work fine on
48 >> multilib-amd64 and (non-multilib) x86, I am not confident without
49 >> more testing that it will work for cross-compiles or other
50 >> non-multilib arches. As such, it -is- in the tree, but I've
51 >> masked it until I can test it myself in these circumstances or
52 >> find someone else that can do it for me.
53 >
54 > But... if you unmask it, someone will test it and report whether
55 > it works :P.
56 >
57
58 But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
59 it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be
60 quite a lot at this point. :D
61
62
63 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
64 Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
65
66 iF4EAREIAAYFAlOxhOIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPD4NwD/Spcjj7VPGNIz+FCVTkSUDmKZ
67 ghVqFhuiemJO7+G62wgA/jc7bpyPsu8S7wbbNs3UYGqE//MyVYNWHDmOoXDZ3Qsk
68 =FEfS
69 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>