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 1EGWO8-0004z1-GR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:41:28 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8H6ZZ8K030016; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:35:35 GMT Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8H6Xu0r004706 for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:33:56 GMT Received: from beu1.demon.co.uk ([83.105.51.149] helo=zippy) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 4.42) id 1EGWLt-000NYu-FK for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:39:09 +0000 Received: by zippy (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:39:09 +0100 Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:39:09 +0100 From: Elfyn McBratney To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Message-ID: <20050917063909.GC7663@zippy.emcb.local> Mail-Followup-To: Elfyn McBratney , gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20050915205149.GB22270@vino.zko.hp.com> <200509162048.58261.pauldv@gentoo.org> <20050916200225.7ab159ab@snowdrop.home> <200509161515.26063.vapier@gentoo.org> <20050916201622.GE16616@olive.flatmonk> 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="32u276st3Jlj2kUU" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050916201622.GE16616@olive.flatmonk> User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel (Linux) X-Archives-Salt: 5b8678a7-a127-4ea8-9399-532416b5987e X-Archives-Hash: 4fe8eebfd5edd4f60379ae9690ce78d2 --32u276st3Jlj2kUU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:16:22PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: > Vapier wrote:[Fri Sep 16 2005, 03:15:26PM EDT] > > not really ... sometimes you want to keep a package in unstable > > forever (like the cvs snapshots i make of e17), or until you work > > some quirks/features out for a new revbump which you would want > > stable >=20 > Why wouldn't you put these in package.mask? Why would you ? ;) If package foo isn't known to be broken, or known to break other packages, and generally just works(tm), why make it just that little bit harder for other people to test it ? Forgetting that it's just one extra step to take before emerging (adding an atom for package to /etc/portage/p.unmask), in addition to adding an atom for it to /etc/portage/p.keywords also, there's also the fact that package.mask is a dumping ground for packages that fit one (or more) of the following: * is vulnerable to exploitation and the like, or; * is broken on some level (crashes, munched goldfish, ..); or * requires extensive testing with the rest of the system i.e., could _completely_ break ones install. In other words, it's unstable, and many users (including myself) stay away from packages therein. So, the question is: when did ~arch and packake.mask become synonymous ? Best, Elfyn --=20 Elfyn McBratney beu/irc.freenode.net http://dev.gentoo.org/~beu/ +------------O.o--------------------- http://dev.gentoo.org/~beu/pubkey.asc PGP Key ID: 0x69DF17AD PGP Key Fingerprint: DBD3 B756 ED58 B1B4 47B9 B3BD 8D41 E597 69DF 17AD --32u276st3Jlj2kUU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDK7oNjUHll2nfF60RAqTNAJwNHcL3Xxus0W87cnovIL8oCbk79wCgqsqj 36waVf//HOV0F4saBq2S/oM= =3KIE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --32u276st3Jlj2kUU-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list