From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23517 invoked by uid 1002); 6 Aug 2003 17:18:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 18270 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2003 17:18:50 -0000 From: Chris Gianelloni To: Jani Monoses Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20030806190715.0c83656d.jani@iv.ro> References: <20030806190715.0c83656d.jani@iv.ro> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-axfyZKxRFWO3eRuGHZHn" Message-Id: <1060190681.19001.313.camel@vertigo> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3 Date: 06 Aug 2003 13:24:42 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] package masking too conservative? X-Archives-Salt: 8647a81e-b7f5-464d-9166-56e7f3a32246 X-Archives-Hash: e4559e2170dd6fe9e9540645c92129eb --=-axfyZKxRFWO3eRuGHZHn Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 12:07, Jani Monoses wrote: > Hi all > no flame bait or anything but IMHO some packages are way too much in the > masked state. I don't know the exact QA policy but it's probably do not > annoy users by installing bleeding-edge software let the brave ones > unmask explicitely. This is fine but I think it's applied to generically > While I understand that few people would want the latest glibc, XFree > snapshot or KDE form CVS, masking also applies to standalone programs > which don't really affect general system stability. Many of these are > programs in active development with pretty frequent releases where the > developers are looking for feedback and where they generally release > when they consider they improved.There are probably counter-examples > too though... > Ex: ebuilds for subversion , distcc, valgrind, scons are either > entirely masked or generally lagging behind a couple of releases wrt the > 'unstable' ebuild. > The policy that 'if for an amount of time there are no bugs reported > against' they are made stable is again two-edged: there's less testing > of latest releases so only a smaller procent of the gentoo crowd > actually provides feedback to their development. More like those RPM > based distros :) >=20 > Especially because many tools I find are undeservingly masked are > developer oriented so there's a greater chance feedback will be sane and > prompt. >=20 > I'd propose to loosen this policy a bit, but then again who am I? >=20 > Jani >=20 > cc: please >=20 >=20 > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list Just my quick .02... You can always mask packages which are ~arch. After all, ~arch is the "testing" branch in Gentoo, and not really considered an "unstable" branch. If you're willing to participate in testing, then you should probably have KEYWORDS=3D~arch in your /etc/make.conf anyway. The "stable" branch is supposed to be tried and true. You know it'll work.=20 The idea is to not be sending packages which may be broken to unsuspecting users. Also, there is stable.gentoo.org, which can be used to vote on packages that are in testing to make them stable. I think if more people were using this facility, it would provide for a much quicker transition for many packages. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Developer, Gentoo Linux --=-axfyZKxRFWO3eRuGHZHn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/MTnZkT4lNIS36YERAmiIAJ9E3cOO1af5rGw+Q3h/2SzMxQJwkwCfRHdN DVvgv/q7kx/tAL+PSoaX3DM= =n0aW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-axfyZKxRFWO3eRuGHZHn--