From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGMtH-0000PZ-0G for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:32:59 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8GKQWee032753; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:26:32 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8GKOgn2021999 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:24:42 GMT Received: from [65.115.53.39] (helo=[192.168.10.54]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EGMqD-00035j-UX for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:29:50 +0000 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting From: Daniel Ostrow To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20050916202159.GF16616@olive.flatmonk> References: <20050915205149.GB22270@vino.zko.hp.com> <200509161515.26063.vapier@gentoo.org> <20050916203437.33cfb0fa@snowdrop.home> <200509162211.20786.pauldv@gentoo.org> <20050916202159.GF16616@olive.flatmonk> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: The Gentoo Foundation Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:25:58 -0400 Message-Id: <1126902358.9857.6.camel@Memoria.anyarch.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: fe8d6883-5664-43a3-a02f-5aa61fa013e2 X-Archives-Hash: 24be1fd4463aeb015557dc9bdc481537 On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 16:21 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: > Paul de Vrieze wrote:[Fri Sep 16 2005, 04:11:14PM EDT] > > > Those should be in package.mask. ~arch is for candidates for arch that > > > haven't yet proven themselves. > > > > It's often the case that those ebuilds in principle work, but there > > are other reasons for not marking stable yet. Some packages for > > example can have upgrade problems for stable users while being > > stable for testing (by benefit of allready having passed such > > upgrade problems). Masking the ebuild is not really an option > > (causing testing users to go through unnecessary hoops again), while > > marking stable is also no option. > > You're saying there's four states: > > package.mask > ~arch > ~arch candidate for arch > arch > > Putting packages in package.mask isn't a hardship for testers. I'm > not sure that's a good reason for the additional state. It's purely > a matter of > > echo 'dev-util/mercurial' >> /etc/portage/package.unmask > > So far I find myself agreeing with Ciaran's idea in this thread. > I don't see the point (yet) in more than three states. His point (and it's an unfortunately valid one) as I understand it is that our user base has been (mis)educated to avoid packages in p.mask for fear of breaking things too badly. As such it gets an inherently far smaller test base then packages in ~arch do. Personally I am uncomfortable with people using ~arch as a "We didn't get enough testing for package X, so we are putting it here for a wider audience." mentality. That is the whole purpose of p.mask and released independent overlays (such as fbsd and php use). Either way the use of ~arch for this purpose is really just wrong. -- Daniel Ostrow Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel} dostrow@gentoo.org -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list