| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <azarah@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the |
| 5 |
> | summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should |
| 6 |
> | cover those things that sorda work on the arch, but you rather want |
| 7 |
> | developers or experienced users that can patch bugs to look at it ... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Those go in per-profile package.masks. It's more flexible than a |
| 10 |
> keyword. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
This is true, however it requires users to possibly make a gazillion |
| 13 |
entries in their /etc/portage/package.unmask if they want to use a lot |
| 14 |
of what are considered truly unstable packages. You might say they |
| 15 |
could just symlink their profile package.mask to |
| 16 |
/etc/portage/package.unmask, but then, maybe somebody doesn't want to |
| 17 |
unmask *everything* in there. You can argue that the extra effort |
| 18 |
required ensures that only competent and persistent users are testing |
| 19 |
this software, but I'm not sure that is the case (note that I don't have |
| 20 |
any good way to justify this statement...just speculation). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Anyway, getting to my point, I think small arches such as mips would |
| 23 |
benefit from reducing the barriers required to test this sort of stuff. |
| 24 |
I know I've probably abused ~arch by the strictest definitions on |
| 25 |
several occasions. Otherwise, I would be practically the *only* person |
| 26 |
testing things, and that is not a good way to uncover bugs. Only |
| 27 |
widespread use of the packages will really bring these out, which I |
| 28 |
think could be better achieved with the addition of a truly "unstable" |
| 29 |
keyword like az is suggesting. Just my 2 cents... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-Steve |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives