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 D861113877A for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:57:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F7BCE09FE; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:57:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from baptiste.telenet-ops.be (baptiste.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.51]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A6FE09DF for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:57:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org ([94.226.51.153]) by baptiste.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id MVxi1o0073JKcCE01VxiC8; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:57:42 +0200 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:56:11 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: rich0@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch Message-ID: <20140702195611.5bea8ddc@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20140630040153.GA668@linux1> <20140630161555.15ab3403@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140630211106.26e1bed5@gentoo.org> 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_/Vc3.CICRFd2q_0J2yfCeXth"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 3a43e9c9-620f-4948-9b6f-57a661f8fbef X-Archives-Hash: 259d689dc10aa363621e07a4a8a57245 --Sig_/Vc3.CICRFd2q_0J2yfCeXth Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:19:59 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Tom Wijsman > wrote: > > > > 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 > So that it can be tested? Maybe the maintainer doesn't have the > ability to test the package (might require special hardware). Maybe > the maintainer doesn't have the time to test it right away, but wants > to allow others to do so (especially if others show an interest). That is an edge case; it's somewhat hard to maintain a package if you can't test it, and there are occasions (eg. Amazon EC2 related packages) where this is indeed needed. I don't see a need to introduce that masked though; but again, it depends on how edgy it is... > Sure, I can set up yet another overlay, which will be empty 99% of the > time. But, what is the harm in just using a mask? I've yet to leave > one sitting around for years (well, not for testing at least). No problem with that if it is for a safe introduction, although I'm not quite sure how much that really invites actual testing; however it's not about that, everything that stays longer forms the problem. --=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_/Vc3.CICRFd2q_0J2yfCeXth Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTtEe8AAoJEPWZc8roOL/QqOYH/0HZvSsMZzC48LgVpyroHK5R 3JIpjGqhjLSlgWgzqBVllyPXv8+kKS4Wx9uj8AUi0lvg7RQp/YwxOT9lps9jC+HE 1ff+qfQ0n3W+lvo9QZc5EkgoSLKo0J4gy7CwmHAdtG0VMh9ofkE3eWO/P+2XTc9G ujKTdSMX/xyegXFERn1UaUzJxcUyCYi8ycDNUWIt27PMbQcOApQQ3K87J2p9mcas FXgk+uju5krZMGJIr5X7gTJAEYEU+R3jLNCnO9ozE+P0+TDQVNjIeDxE2OtAKM11 8BCp5fX7VGpFhFWgGiNZ3/HBfGuaeMVBzzNIPxi1nv1koa4ECLOA54ozXuV3B5Y= =fnxF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Vc3.CICRFd2q_0J2yfCeXth--