| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 04:17:10PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> i really want to get away from the idea of 'package.mask is for testing |
| 3 |
> packages' ... its current dual role as both masking 'testing' packages and |
| 4 |
> 'broken' packages is wrong imo |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> we dont want to try reeducating our users to not be afraid of package.mask |
| 7 |
> because a lot of things in there they *should* be afraid of |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Coming from the user side (forums) i fully agree. Common sense among |
| 10 |
the users always used to be: |
| 11 |
arch: stable |
| 12 |
~arch: testing |
| 13 |
p.mask: broken |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This is also covered in our current documentation, see |
| 16 |
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/hb-portage-branches.xml |
| 17 |
--snip-- |
| 18 |
The Testing Branch |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If you want to use more recent software, you can consider using the |
| 21 |
testing branch instead. To have Portage use the testing branch, add a |
| 22 |
~ in front of your architecture. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The testing branch is exactly what it says - Testing. If a package is |
| 25 |
in testing, it means that the developers feel that it is functional |
| 26 |
but has not been thoroughly tested. You could very well be the first |
| 27 |
to discover a bug in the package in which case you could file a |
| 28 |
bugreport to let the developers know about it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Beware though, you might notice stability issues, imperfect package |
| 31 |
handling (for instance wrong/missing dependencies), too frequent |
| 32 |
updates (resulting in lots of building) or broken packages. If you do |
| 33 |
not know how Gentoo works and how to solve problems, we recommend that |
| 34 |
you stick with the stable and tested branch. |
| 35 |
--snip-- |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Doesn't exactly sound like packages in ~arch should be ready to enter |
| 38 |
arch after 30 days (and or the other QA requirements). If someone |
| 39 |
wants to change that, that would be a major change to Gentoo, |
| 40 |
especially as it affects _every_ user. So it would at least require a |
| 41 |
GLEP to do that. |
| 42 |
I'd rather like to finally see proper QA applied and those who don't |
| 43 |
beaten with a stick than making fundamental changes to existing common |
| 44 |
sense just because it is written down somewhere _that_ way. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
cheers, |
| 47 |
Wernfried |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org |
| 51 |
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org |
| 52 |
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org |
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives