From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_MISSING, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl (smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.141]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4122D24944; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 12:29:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from force.synnergy (fire.xs4all.nl [213.84.91.124]) by smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id fBMIT6RS092747; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 19:29:11 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <200112221829.fBMIT6RS092747@smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Guido Bakker Organization: IQUIP Informatica To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org, Dan Armak Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc. Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 19:29:14 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.8] References: <0GOR009629L95F@mxout2.netvision.net.il> <20011222112853.B27239@chiba.3jane.net> <0GOR0095HCI2PS@mxout2.netvision.net.il> In-Reply-To: <0GOR0095HCI2PS@mxout2.netvision.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developer discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 85190fe1-937e-41c4-a146-04b8e1642858 X-Archives-Hash: 92a43cf275272b266a903f3afcb3d486 Hi, I run cvs with no problems at all. If the ebuild is called beta? Users sh= ould=20 know that it can brake things. I would say go for it :)... -- Guido On Saturday 22 December 2001 19:28, you wrote: > Can you just put them on Portage and add them to package.mask? I could, and that'd be the most comfortable option (for me). But when I originally discussed this with Hallski (in kde3-alpha1 days) he decided I shouldn't do that. His reason was/is, that portage shouldn't become a tes= ting ground for beta packages on the scale of KDE when a good stable version o= f the package already exists, not even masked. (Maybe he could explain more fully/correctly). I hope this explains the situation.