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 D66C813877A for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:13:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 991D4E0AC1; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:12:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from baptiste.telenet-ops.be (baptiste.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.51]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93424E0AB8 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:12:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org ([94.226.51.153]) by baptiste.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id LjCc1o00b3JKcCE01jCct2; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:12:36 +0200 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:11:06 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: rich0@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch Message-ID: <20140630211106.26e1bed5@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20140630040153.GA668@linux1> <20140630161555.15ab3403@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> 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_/sb7MjcgfVVyIuKeP5Fr/abq"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: e5fe2809-1e41-419d-9f9d-1b5f434982ef X-Archives-Hash: e60df27148f1a9aedfd46382a3a1e7d7 --Sig_/sb7MjcgfVVyIuKeP5Fr/abq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:48:22 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jeroen Roovers > wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400 > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN > >> TESTED AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that > >> is it. > > > > Developers who "HAVEN'T [...] TESTED AT ALL" and still commit their > > changes to the tree should immediately hand in their toys and leave > > the project. >=20 > What harm does it cause to commit an untested package in a masked > state to the tree? >=20 > Doing so violates no policy, and IMHO it shouldn't be considered a > policy violation either, especially if it makes life easier on anybody > who has actually volunteered to test it. "should" !=3D "must"; that joke aside, while it's not punishable by policy (and shouldn't even be punished if it's not repeated behavior) we rather need to keep the package.mask file of a reasonable size. The goal of this file is to have an overview of what _is_ BROKEN; when you add a lot of UNSURE, its contents will diverge away from this goal. A test of a package to determine whether it appears to be working OK or whether it destructs your system isn't too much asked for; if it works it can then be ~arch tested, if it breaks you have a bug # for p.mask. If someone can't test it at all, why was it added in the first place? --=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_/sb7MjcgfVVyIuKeP5Fr/abq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTsbZKAAoJEPWZc8roOL/QxZEH/RMzH6qrpHjDkrdaSHl8ZjH+ LVVJSudDrFmXf0cJY7NYLHPR+hPB2Zl/JgNCnYLy+CEmMT+RbfXoUcw7+stQFwFT 838Kcps2yr4wpX/vw8ljRF5fuJDYvxS8ymLRXVM6Xcw/w6HtaseBziKwntxjHhMY Bk7ka57Ri+tZ+f8GIPZQdkLiNsjkOiUjxl4uKVWMgsF7dTR7X1IJSpcUa8lMOGF5 H9iO2PA/ajujvkoGCFH7PwzcohoLsSD43B5JpcyJyxWyzKwUa94Zt+CMRAjplSA5 LDkgf3TR6diLTJdSYvVHP6OYWQZilEaQt4+VZlb/6mgM4OzIn7RyCeZz8eHLowA= =wl2j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/sb7MjcgfVVyIuKeP5Fr/abq--