From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-34663-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1Le25i-0004wc-Ii
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 06:57:30 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 767FDE024B;
	Mon,  2 Mar 2009 06:57:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CB6E024B
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon,  2 Mar 2009 06:57:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from gentoo.org (c-98-246-79-112.hsd1.or.comcast.net [98.246.79.112])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E201C64648
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon,  2 Mar 2009 06:57:27 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 22:57:27 -0800
From: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] QA Overlay Layout support.
Message-ID: <20090302065727.GD1955@comet>
References: <497B9D38.6030702@gentoo.org> <20090302031145.GB1955@comet> <49AB7A52.3060401@gentoo.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.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="+KJYzRxRHjYqLGl5"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49AB7A52.3060401@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Archives-Salt: c8afc5d0-2644-4aa2-8fa4-c7a04c6a46a5
X-Archives-Hash: 0dab20d815ca0b70a30a94cbe242986f


--+KJYzRxRHjYqLGl5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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. =
=20
> Anything from user contributed and non-dev qa'd to packages with bundled=
=20
> jars to attempts to package projects like maven which are difficult and=
=20
> time consuming ( and which attempts to do so have failed numerous times=
=20
> before might I add ).
>
> Asking non-dev contributors to handle package.mask's would be a "less =20
> than ideal". Resulting in "interesting breakages".  Currently by adding =
=20
> java-experimental ( which might I add isn't available thru layman ) you =
=20
> are accepting that risk.

I don't understand the distinction you're making here. Either way, users=20
explicitly take a manual action to enable additional experimental=20
packages (unmasking or adding an overlay full of them). In fact, I see=20
the separate-overlay option as worse because then you get *everything*=20
=66rom the overlay, whereas package.mask is more granular and can be=20
fine-tuned per-package.

Could you explain what you see as the important difference that makes=20
package.mask bad and a separate overlay good?

--=20
Thanks,
Donnie

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

--+KJYzRxRHjYqLGl5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkmrg1cACgkQXVaO67S1rtvB0gCaAho0d56GjXaHG9GILP6uC5bQ
WzsAnjfr888K5zNsGtMmTrYBE/xxHUS2
=upPS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--+KJYzRxRHjYqLGl5--