| 1 |
On Saturday 25 February 2006 17:47, Mariusz Pękala <skoot@××.pl> wrote |
| 2 |
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] What happens with masked packages?': |
| 3 |
> On 2006-02-25 13:34:28 -0600 (Sat, Feb), Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > > So, betas shouldn't ever be ~arch? Or is your definition of |
| 5 |
> > > > stable broad enough to include betas? |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > Entirely dependent on the upstream. I've had Vim beta releases in |
| 8 |
> > > ~arch, for example, because I'm confident in upstream's ability to |
| 9 |
> > > do beta releases without screwing up. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > So, it's based on the collective opinion of the gentoo developers? |
| 12 |
> > Wouldn't it be better to put that in the hands of the gentoo user? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> IMHO it already is. It's called PORTAGE_OVERLAY. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Again, hard to do automatically. Wheras, if I could just set |
| 17 |
ACCEPT_UPSTREAM="BETA" I'd get all the betas. Or I could use |
| 18 |
package.upstream and but in "kde-extra/kaffeine ALPHA" and get anything |
| 19 |
assigned more than a snapshot number for that package. (Instead of |
| 20 |
manually checking after each sync to see if there's a new, masked |
| 21 |
version.) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. |
| 25 |
bss03@××××××××××.net |
| 26 |
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives