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 1EGOAR-0005wf-9W for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:54:47 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8GLmP3e000849; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:48:25 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 j8GLjKca031104 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:45:20 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGO6H-0004WS-KN for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:50:29 +0000 Received: (qmail 18503 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2005 17:46:29 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 16 Sep 2005 17:46:29 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:50:39 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <20050915205149.GB22270@vino.zko.hp.com> <1126902358.9857.6.camel@Memoria.anyarch.net> <200509161643.36591.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200509161643.36591.vapier@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509161750.39591.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: c30dd829-608a-420e-980f-720405e4d0ee X-Archives-Hash: a861d0331dcdcd1aa57ce1eccc8e2596 On Friday 16 September 2005 04:43 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 16 September 2005 04:25 pm, Daniel Ostrow wrote: > > 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. > > arch stable > ~arch unstable > ?arch should work fine, but not 100% sure yet > package.mask known to be broken in some way actually, going with say 'testing.mask' instead of '?arch' may be better ... reinforce the fact that this is a package-level issue rather than arch-specific -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list