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 1EGjAG-0000zU-W3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:20:01 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j8HKDYS3008068; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:13:34 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j8HKBokV011910 for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:11:50 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGj7U-0001EG-L4 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:17:08 +0000 Received: (qmail 24753 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2005 16:17:21 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 17 Sep 2005 16:17:21 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:17:10 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <1126897217.7832.49.camel@Memoria.anyarch.net> In-Reply-To: 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: <200509171617.10869.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 3c21a963-017c-4cfb-91d5-6e41f5d46a4c X-Archives-Hash: cf6874e3ef0cc2463ff3d9b099363ea9 On Saturday 17 September 2005 05:28 am, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > How about if the maintainer wants wider testing, i.e. wants to move > it out of package.mask and into ~arch but isn't confident it's ready > yet for arch, adding a string variable to ebuilds indicating why the > maintainer considers the package unstable, eg: i really want to get away from the idea of 'package.mask is for testing packages' ... its current dual role as both masking 'testing' packages and 'broken' packages is wrong imo we dont want to try reeducating our users to not be afraid of package.mask because a lot of things in there they *should* be afraid of -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list