| 1 |
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 12:07, Jani Monoses wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi all |
| 3 |
> no flame bait or anything but IMHO some packages are way too much in the |
| 4 |
> masked state. I don't know the exact QA policy but it's probably do not |
| 5 |
> annoy users by installing bleeding-edge software let the brave ones |
| 6 |
> unmask explicitely. This is fine but I think it's applied to generically |
| 7 |
> While I understand that few people would want the latest glibc, XFree |
| 8 |
> snapshot or KDE form CVS, masking also applies to standalone programs |
| 9 |
> which don't really affect general system stability. Many of these are |
| 10 |
> programs in active development with pretty frequent releases where the |
| 11 |
> developers are looking for feedback and where they generally release |
| 12 |
> when they consider they improved.There are probably counter-examples |
| 13 |
> too though... |
| 14 |
> Ex: ebuilds for subversion , distcc, valgrind, scons are either |
| 15 |
> entirely masked or generally lagging behind a couple of releases wrt the |
| 16 |
> 'unstable' ebuild. |
| 17 |
> The policy that 'if for an amount of time there are no bugs reported |
| 18 |
> against' they are made stable is again two-edged: there's less testing |
| 19 |
> of latest releases so only a smaller procent of the gentoo crowd |
| 20 |
> actually provides feedback to their development. More like those RPM |
| 21 |
> based distros :) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Especially because many tools I find are undeservingly masked are |
| 24 |
> developer oriented so there's a greater chance feedback will be sane and |
| 25 |
> prompt. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> I'd propose to loosen this policy a bit, but then again who am I? |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Jani |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> cc: please |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> -- |
| 35 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Just my quick .02... |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
You can always mask packages which are ~arch. After all, ~arch is the |
| 40 |
"testing" branch in Gentoo, and not really considered an "unstable" |
| 41 |
branch. If you're willing to participate in testing, then you should |
| 42 |
probably have KEYWORDS=~arch in your /etc/make.conf anyway. The |
| 43 |
"stable" branch is supposed to be tried and true. You know it'll work. |
| 44 |
The idea is to not be sending packages which may be broken to |
| 45 |
unsuspecting users. Also, there is stable.gentoo.org, which can be used |
| 46 |
to vote on packages that are in testing to make them stable. I think if |
| 47 |
more people were using this facility, it would provide for a much |
| 48 |
quicker transition for many packages. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 52 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
Archives