| 1 |
On 21/07/2013 23:38, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
>>> - consistency of tree quality |
| 3 |
> does not apply to p.mask'd packages |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
p.mask says that the package is in _bad_ quality, explicitly, and you |
| 6 |
can say how, so "does not apply" are not really the words I'd use. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
>>> - less user confusion (the checksum failures alone get us a lot of bugs |
| 9 |
>>> every release without people realizing what it means...) and people |
| 10 |
>>> expect packages to work in the tree |
| 11 |
> maybe |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Not p.masked packages they don't. Just state it outright, maybe even |
| 14 |
fetch-restrict the package and warn them... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
>>> - less bugs no one can do anything about |
| 17 |
> does not apply |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
*How* does making it into a semi-official one-purpose overlay reduce the |
| 20 |
number of bugs users report? Either you're banning it into a |
| 21 |
non-Gentoo-owned overlay, or you're just betting they would get the |
| 22 |
reason why it's not in an overlay, same applies to p.mask. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
>>> - easier contribution of users in an overlay, testing of hacks or other |
| 25 |
>>> stuff to make it work |
| 26 |
> does not apply |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'm afraid I have to agree with Michael here. Proxies would do that, and |
| 29 |
users are still free to experiment with overlaid version, I don't see |
| 30 |
how this makes much of a difference. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
>>> - making clear that gentoo does not support software with such low QA |
| 33 |
> does not apply |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
It applies perfectly. It's a p.mask for a reason, and can convey reasons. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
It's your package, do what you want, but stop just trying to force your |
| 38 |
views into suggestions, just because you already reached your |
| 39 |
conclusion, please. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 43 |
flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives