Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Andrew Muraco <tuxp3@×××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:55:32
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting by Matti Bickel
1 In response to all replies Thus far,
2 I as a User,
3 I expect that arch works (no matter what) - no arguments there
4 I assume that ~arch will work 95% of the time.
5 I never ever touch anything in p.mask.
7 Now, where do we put packages that could work for most users, but they
8 might not work for the other 49% of users?
9 p.mask seems to prevent that 49% of users from trying it, and reporting
10 those bugs, but on the other hand ~arch means that 49% of users using
11 ~arch will have problem x,y, or z.
13 Now understand, this is the viewpoint of myself, and I have used a full
14 ~arch system for a while, and i didn't ever run into anything more then
15 the occasional package with a new config, or config update that i didnt
16 do properly. (lazy-ness)
18 things to consider
19 1) would ?arch become the old ~arch, if it was implemented?
20 2) would people actually try to run a full ?arch system?
21 3) #2, would it be possible without breakage?
23 I personally like the idea of the UNSTABLE="" because to me, it changes
24 nothing, but allows the AT and PM to communicate, on a per-ebuild basis.
26 (comments welcome)
27 just some thoughts,
28 Andrew
31 --
32 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>