[gentoo-dev] Update on Gentoo Policy; description of package.mask vs ~arch

[gentoo-dev] Update on Gentoo Policy; description of package.mask vs ~arch

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1511 bytes --]

Hi all,

With thanks to Alastair Tse I've updated the Gentoo Policy with a more
verbose explanation on the use of ~arch versus package.mask.

The change will be online with the next webserver sync and is made at 
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/policy.xml#doc_chap4_sect3

The sentence

	This is not the equivalent of "testing" or "unstable" in other
	distributions.

has been replaced with

	There is a difference between using package.mask and ~arch for
	ebuilds. The use of ~arch denotes an ebuild requires testing. The
	use of package.mask denotes that the application or library itself
	is deemed unstable. For example, if gimp-1.2.0 is the stable release
	from Gimp developers, and a new bug fix release is available as
	1.2.1, then a developer should mark the ebuild as ~arch for testing
	in portage because the release is deemed to be stable. In another
	example, if Gimp decides to release an unstable/development series
	marked as 1.3.0, then these ebuilds should be put in package.mask
	because the software itself is of development quality and is
	not recommended by the developers for distribution.

I know it's not my habit of telling gentoo-dev when documentation is updated,
but for updates on the policy I will try to do make a habit out of it.

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
   /  /    
  /  /     Sven Vermeulen          Gentoo Documentation & PR
 /  /      swift@gentoo.org       
/  /                     Goodnight Dana, may you find peace where you are now.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update on Gentoo Policy; description of package.mask vs ~arch

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1823 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:33:23 +0100
Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> With thanks to Alastair Tse I've updated the Gentoo Policy with a more
> verbose explanation on the use of ~arch versus package.mask.
> 
> The change will be online with the next webserver sync and is made at 
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/policy.xml#doc_chap4_sect3
> 
> The sentence
> 
> 	This is not the equivalent of "testing" or "unstable" in other
> 	distributions.
> 
> has been replaced with
> 
> 	There is a difference between using package.mask and ~arch for
> 	ebuilds. The use of ~arch denotes an ebuild requires testing.
> 	The use of package.mask denotes that the application or library
> 	itself is deemed unstable. For example, if gimp-1.2.0 is the
> 	stable release from Gimp developers, and a new bug fix release
> 	is available as 1.2.1, then a developer should mark the ebuild
> 	as ~arch for testing in portage because the release is deemed to
> 	be stable. In another example, if Gimp decides to release an
> 	unstable/development series marked as 1.3.0, then these ebuilds
> 	should be put in package.mask because the software itself is of
> 	development quality and is not recommended by the developers for
> 	distribution.
> 
> I know it's not my habit of telling gentoo-dev when documentation is
> updated, but for updates on the policy I will try to do make a habit
> out of it.
> 




YES! FINALLY! 

WOO hooo. 


Maybe this means that we will once again be able to get rid of the
<censored> that litter our systems with requests for gnome 2.5 , evo 1.5
and other more or less broken packages as ~arch. 

Thanks, much appreciated.


//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]