Re: [gentoo-dev] apache and ~arch

[Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1490 bytes --]

On Monday 14 March 2005 3:43 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:24:41 -0600 Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | However, I don't believe that ~arch should be used for ebuilds
> | that one _knows_ have broken functionality.  For such cases we
> | have package.mask.
>
> Indeed. It's in the developer docs and it's in the quiz. And yet...
>
> http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/hollow/2005/03/14/apache_dithering

He still does great work. So, please don't stick on words written down in hot 
times.

> > I can understand that breaking the system isn't a very good idea and
> > people will complain, but this does not count for the testing branch.
>
> *sigh* Er, no. If you *know* it's broken, don't stick it in ~arch. If
> it has no known issues, but hasn't been widely tested, then ~arch is
> fine, but not if it's completely h0rked.

FYI, mod_php wasn't "completely borked". It's just not been unmasked at the 
same time as the others went out of the hardmask state.

> For how long have these people been developers and who were their
> mentors? I'm starting to think that this wasn't a simple mistake --
> rather, that it's a complete misunderstanding of what the different
> KEYWORDS levels mean...

I - in my case - have learned my lessons from this - who cares.

Regards,
Christian Parpart.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 16:27:26 up 136 days,  8:57,  1 user,  load average: 0.12, 0.21, 0.24

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