[gentoo-dev] Re: package.mask vs ~arch

["Steven J. Long" <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>]

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:01:53PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in ~arch.
> > Suppose the maintainer is unable to test some aspect of the package,
> > or any aspect of the package?  Do we want it to break completely for
> > ~arch?  In that event, nobody will run ~arch for that package, and
> > then it still isn't getting tested.
> 
> I'm not saying that we should just randomly throw something into ~arch
> without testing it, but ~arch users are running ~arch with the
> understanding that their systems will break from time to time and they
> are expected to be able to deal with it when/if it happens. ~arch is
> not a second stable branch.

Nor is it a dumping ground for something you can't be bothered to overlay.

> > I agree that masking for testing is like having a 3rd branch, but I'm
> > not convinced that this is a bad thing.  ~arch should be for packages
> > that have received rudimentary testing and which are ready for testing
> > by a larger population.  Masking should be used for packages that
> > haven't received rudimentary testing - they might not have been tested
> > at all.
> 
> The concern with this argument is  the definition of rudimentary testing
> is subjective, especially when a package supports many possible
> configurations.

Well it can never be fresh from upstream, even if that upstream is a
Gentoo developer. eudev is more of a sanity filter, and doesn't claim
to be upstream. If anything we want more constraints when a Gentoo dev
is "lead" on a project, as there are even less dykes in the way.

> I think some packages need wide testing before they go stable, and that
> is where ~arch can help out.

IOW some packages don't need "wide" testing, which by your yardstick, is
what anyone with experience/common-sense would call "a beta release."

> In particular, I would argue that for system-critical packages, users
> should be very careful about running ~arch unless they know what the
> fallout can be.

Yes, and so should Gentoo, when faced with "developers" who think
themselves exceptions to the rules everyone else should live by.

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)