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 1EGPRi-0000Jh-0E for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:16:42 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8GNApuJ006167; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:10:51 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 j8GN927X032455 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:09:08 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGPPI-0004xf-B0 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:14:12 +0000 Received: (qmail 7054 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2005 19:10:12 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 16 Sep 2005 19:10:12 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:14:23 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <20050915205149.GB22270@vino.zko.hp.com> <200509161750.39591.vapier@gentoo.org> <200509170045.51612.carlo@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200509170045.51612.carlo@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> 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: <200509161914.23781.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: c1dc1a39-3544-4168-9284-67d05c545fe5 X-Archives-Hash: f9a997ef6390777b081a285b6d8819c6 On Friday 16 September 2005 06:45 pm, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Friday 16 September 2005 23:50, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > 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 > > That's nearly as bad as having to deal with package.mask all the time. > Keeping the maintainer's opinion on an ebuild outside of it doesn't make > any sense. maybe, but considering we're talking about testing on a package level and not an arch level, either solution has its failings i dont really care either way so long as we have a new level of control -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list