| 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. |
| 6 |
|
| 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. |
| 12 |
|
| 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) |
| 17 |
|
| 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? |
| 22 |
|
| 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. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
(comments welcome) |
| 27 |
just some thoughts, |
| 28 |
Andrew |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives