From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C47913877A for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:54:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A43AAE0A9D; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:53:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from albert.telenet-ops.be (albert.telenet-ops.be [195.130.137.90]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89AC6E0A92 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:53:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org ([94.226.51.153]) by albert.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id LitE1o00K3JKcCE06itEyP; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:53:14 +0200 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:51:39 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: tetromino@gentoo.org Subject: [OT] Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch Message-ID: <20140630205139.5131b658@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1404108260.29783.1.camel@rook> References: <20140630040153.GA668@linux1> <1404108260.29783.1.camel@rook> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail 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; boundary="Sig_/_1scp19NW+IpMUxkVaGnkC."; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 6d01eeca-4340-4132-80d9-ad13bf23171b X-Archives-Hash: aab2b264a52d7123b5e680fc7722d1df --Sig_/_1scp19NW+IpMUxkVaGnkC. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:04:20 -0400 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > I realize that not everybody agrees with me, but I see ~arch as a > "semi-stable" branch - an internally consistent branch for people who > don't feel like maintaining a horrific mess of keywords and masks in > their /etc/portage and don't want to wait weeks/months for bugfixes to > their favorite ebuilds to be marked stable by overworked arch teams, > and who don't mind seeing an occasional build failure or crash as a > consequence of standing closer to the bleeding edge. [[ TL;DR: This mail is a confirmation with some more side details. ]] +1. I do agree; it works well, and the occasional regression that manages to get through often isn't too bad. Maybe once in multiple years you end up with a broken boot; however, that's not a huge problem if you plan upgrades to not be in front of a deadline / presentation.=20 > In my view, experimental work not ready for general exposure should be > kept in overlays and/or the main tree's package.mask, depending on how > the particular project's workflow is organized. Indeed; take for example MATE, I bump the packages over a span of a few days and keep it masked until mate-base/mate. With GNOME it is similar. This is a case where I need more packages do the standard developer testing; so, I can't just have an individual package unmasked without being able to confirm that it actually works at run-time. For version bumps / new packages I just don't add them to the tree till I have confidently tested for it to not be a bug magnet, but rather a stabilization candidate; I thus don't understand such p.mask entries.=20 > At any given stability level, a system-critical library ideally ought > to be better-tested than, say, a game or a media player. In practice, > this sometimes doesn't happen, because some system-critical library > maintainers don't care about ~arch users and dump experimental code in > their laps, and in my view that's a bad thing because it encourages > users to come up with ad-hoc mixed arch/~arch setups which have > *never* been tested by any developer. The granted ability to make a choice brings its own limits. :) --=20 With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D --Sig_/_1scp19NW+IpMUxkVaGnkC. Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTsbHAAAoJEPWZc8roOL/QqBoH/2nNUH8S0bvVniEpEkBUHg7N COSRIC+lTgiXgjY9HMd7SObj/Xq7Sa0LHF0+3TRQPicOPNwNnRnu9Y3JZXHmlfzB 2BUVVzYX3FirMizFgtAmKZi47LV+T4ei1HhCHO7+fi0ai5R6M6htIGlnPf2orWFr L7BzpXXqi8DQJLMnuk7qLifTlaoAI+TC8J518ucAtFVy502egOfuYXQHRao3XSek t4uTJ6HTxxeKSy2qgh4CLgZzfRBmCUyRKBVzLsLKYFkQhqCk8Ourdms2ioW1Y+jO N8he0ubtPnP1tD6p/pmA6ETyTDk4/Zu2gN2QNQ70eS/g12WHPXpFCrrE2BLGHT4= =833t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/_1scp19NW+IpMUxkVaGnkC.--