Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jani Monoses <jani@××.ro>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] package masking too conservative?
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 15:52:47
1 Hi all
2 no flame bait or anything but IMHO some packages are way too much in the
3 masked state. I don't know the exact QA policy but it's probably do not
4 annoy users by installing bleeding-edge software let the brave ones
5 unmask explicitely. This is fine but I think it's applied to generically
6 While I understand that few people would want the latest glibc, XFree
7 snapshot or KDE form CVS, masking also applies to standalone programs
8 which don't really affect general system stability. Many of these are
9 programs in active development with pretty frequent releases where the
10 developers are looking for feedback and where they generally release
11 when they consider they improved.There are probably counter-examples
12 too though...
13 Ex: ebuilds for subversion , distcc, valgrind, scons are either
14 entirely masked or generally lagging behind a couple of releases wrt the
15 'unstable' ebuild.
16 The policy that 'if for an amount of time there are no bugs reported
17 against' they are made stable is again two-edged: there's less testing
18 of latest releases so only a smaller procent of the gentoo crowd
19 actually provides feedback to their development. More like those RPM
20 based distros :)
22 Especially because many tools I find are undeservingly masked are
23 developer oriented so there's a greater chance feedback will be sane and
24 prompt.
26 I'd propose to loosen this policy a bit, but then again who am I?
28 Jani
30 cc: please
33 --
34 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] package masking too conservative? Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>