Re: [gentoo-dev] QA Overlay Layout support.

[Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1350 bytes --]

On 19:18 Mon 02 Mar     , Alistair Bush wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Combine this with package.mask. To me, experimental means masked.
>
> Experimental within java means a lot of things,  or at least it should.  
> Anything from user contributed and non-dev qa'd to packages with bundled 
> jars to attempts to package projects like maven which are difficult and 
> time consuming ( and which attempts to do so have failed numerous times 
> before might I add ).
>
> Asking non-dev contributors to handle package.mask's would be a "less  
> than ideal". Resulting in "interesting breakages".  Currently by adding  
> java-experimental ( which might I add isn't available thru layman ) you  
> are accepting that risk.

I don't understand the distinction you're making here. Either way, users 
explicitly take a manual action to enable additional experimental 
packages (unmasking or adding an overlay full of them). In fact, I see 
the separate-overlay option as worse because then you get *everything* 
from the overlay, whereas package.mask is more granular and can be 
fine-tuned per-package.

Could you explain what you see as the important difference that makes 
package.mask bad and a separate overlay good?

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]