| 1 |
On Friday 16 September 2005 04:43 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 16 September 2005 04:25 pm, Daniel Ostrow wrote: |
| 3 |
> > His point (and it's an unfortunately valid one) as I understand it is |
| 4 |
> > that our user base has been (mis)educated to avoid packages in p.mask |
| 5 |
> > for fear of breaking things too badly. As such it gets an inherently far |
| 6 |
> > smaller test base then packages in ~arch do. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> arch stable |
| 9 |
> ~arch unstable |
| 10 |
> ?arch should work fine, but not 100% sure yet |
| 11 |
> package.mask known to be broken in some way |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
actually, going with say 'testing.mask' instead of '?arch' may be better ... |
| 14 |
reinforce the fact that this is a package-level issue rather than |
| 15 |
arch-specific |
| 16 |
-mike |
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives