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 1EGMle-0008WK-2a for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:25:06 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8GKJJgx030161; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:19:19 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 j8GKHbMi020661 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:17:37 GMT Received: from agriffis by smtp.gentoo.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1EGMjN-00061c-8U for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:22:45 +0000 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:21:59 -0400 X-OfflineIMAP-x1869165694-64676f73656e64-494e424f582e4f7574626f78: 1126902166-0984559207063-v4.0.8 From: Aron Griffis To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Message-ID: <20050916202159.GF16616@olive.flatmonk> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20050915205149.GB22270@vino.zko.hp.com> <200509161515.26063.vapier@gentoo.org> <20050916203437.33cfb0fa@snowdrop.home> <200509162211.20786.pauldv@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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wzJLGUyc3ArbnUjN" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200509162211.20786.pauldv@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i X-Archives-Salt: ea1a951a-41df-44a8-b446-d1c07e0a269b X-Archives-Hash: cc6da79f15d1c10c64f4186fb83963e0 --wzJLGUyc3ArbnUjN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Paul de Vrieze wrote:[Fri Sep 16 2005, 04:11:14PM EDT] > > Those should be in package.mask. ~arch is for candidates for arch that > > haven't yet proven themselves. >=20 > It's often the case that those ebuilds in principle work, but there > are other reasons for not marking stable yet. Some packages for > example can have upgrade problems for stable users while being > stable for testing (by benefit of allready having passed such > upgrade problems). Masking the ebuild is not really an option > (causing testing users to go through unnecessary hoops again), while > marking stable is also no option. You're saying there's four states: package.mask ~arch ~arch candidate for arch arch Putting packages in package.mask isn't a hardship for testers. I'm not sure that's a good reason for the additional state. It's purely a matter of echo 'dev-util/mercurial' >> /etc/portage/package.unmask So far I find myself agreeing with Ciaran's idea in this thread. I don't see the point (yet) in more than three states. Regards, Aron -- Aron Griffis Gentoo Linux Developer --wzJLGUyc3ArbnUjN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDKylnJrHF4yAQTrARAmH7AJ4uCVt6w5d7Ug2LY2VaGAEO1SXNpACgz1BE aDQ01PH5U6nUSti/YIvnVSc= =foRs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wzJLGUyc3ArbnUjN-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list