| 1 |
On 06/30/2014 11:27, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:37:11 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> You're basically asking for the practice of hard-masks for testing to |
| 6 |
>> be banned. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> My original point in the other thread was that "masked for testing" is |
| 9 |
> not a valid reason. A reference to an outstanding issue, bug report, |
| 10 |
> discussion or other resources would help users determine whether it's |
| 11 |
> safe for them to unmask an ebuild locally. "Masked for testing" offers |
| 12 |
> no guidance at all and is nothing more than a lazy substitute for real |
| 13 |
> content. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I would agree to a point. In the case of some toolchain related packages, |
| 16 |
like gcc and binutils, "masked for testing" keeps potentially dangerous |
| 17 |
system updates from propagating out to a majority of users. However, those |
| 18 |
users and developers who are quite avid about being on the forefront of the |
| 19 |
latest and greatest already know how to unmask such packages and test them |
| 20 |
out. So a mask on "=sys-devel/gcc-4.9.0" with the reason of "Masked for |
| 21 |
testing" makes perfect sense, especially since this version of gcc enables |
| 22 |
strong stack-protection. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Joshua Kinard |
| 26 |
Gentoo/MIPS |
| 27 |
kumba@g.o |
| 28 |
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28 |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And |
| 31 |
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic |
Archives