Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:25:06
Message-Id: 20050916202159.GF16616@olive.flatmonk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting by Paul de Vrieze
1 Paul de Vrieze wrote:[Fri Sep 16 2005, 04:11:14PM EDT]
2 > > Those should be in package.mask. ~arch is for candidates for arch that
3 > > haven't yet proven themselves.
4 >
5 > It's often the case that those ebuilds in principle work, but there
6 > are other reasons for not marking stable yet. Some packages for
7 > example can have upgrade problems for stable users while being
8 > stable for testing (by benefit of allready having passed such
9 > upgrade problems). Masking the ebuild is not really an option
10 > (causing testing users to go through unnecessary hoops again), while
11 > marking stable is also no option.
13 You're saying there's four states:
15 package.mask
16 ~arch
17 ~arch candidate for arch
18 arch
20 Putting packages in package.mask isn't a hardship for testers. I'm
21 not sure that's a good reason for the additional state. It's purely
22 a matter of
24 echo 'dev-util/mercurial' >> /etc/portage/package.unmask
26 So far I find myself agreeing with Ciaran's idea in this thread.
27 I don't see the point (yet) in more than three states.
29 Regards,
30 Aron
32 --
33 Aron Griffis
34 Gentoo Linux Developer


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Olivier Crete <tester@g.o>