From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EClKS-00000A-Ev for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:50:11 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j86LjeVW032576; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:45:40 GMT Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu (lennier.cc.vt.edu [198.82.162.213]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j86LhK2H011317 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:43:20 GMT Received: from steiner.cc.vt.edu (IDENT:mirapoint@evil-steiner.cc.vt.edu [10.1.1.14]) by lennier.cc.vt.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j86LkgF3017493 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:46:42 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (blacksburg-bsr1-69-170-32-128.chvlva.adelphia.net [69.170.32.128] (may be forged)) by steiner.cc.vt.edu (MOS 3.6.4-CR) with ESMTP id DVY20101 (AUTH spbecker); Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:46:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <431E0E40.9060704@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:46:40 -0400 From: "Stephen P. Becker" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050807) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125863332.11366.89.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904210535.24ab8a39@snowdrop.home> <1125865598.11360.122.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904205307.GG23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125869984.11364.143.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050906152209.GA9825@gentoo.org> <1126034976.10430.3.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <431DEF83.6070701@gentoo.org> <20050906204747.60753c4e@snowdrop.home> <1126041584.30327.42.camel@lycan.lan> <20050906223119.06c9b530@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20050906223119.06c9b530@snowdrop.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 618f76e9-ab5c-41fe-a27b-a2085bfe044d X-Archives-Hash: 844d19cca669f7fd29c42cfc61d98703 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer > wrote: > | What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the > | summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should > | cover those things that sorda work on the arch, but you rather want > | developers or experienced users that can patch bugs to look at it ... > > Those go in per-profile package.masks. It's more flexible than a > keyword. This is true, however it requires users to possibly make a gazillion entries in their /etc/portage/package.unmask if they want to use a lot of what are considered truly unstable packages. You might say they could just symlink their profile package.mask to /etc/portage/package.unmask, but then, maybe somebody doesn't want to unmask *everything* in there. You can argue that the extra effort required ensures that only competent and persistent users are testing this software, but I'm not sure that is the case (note that I don't have any good way to justify this statement...just speculation). Anyway, getting to my point, I think small arches such as mips would benefit from reducing the barriers required to test this sort of stuff. I know I've probably abused ~arch by the strictest definitions on several occasions. Otherwise, I would be practically the *only* person testing things, and that is not a good way to uncover bugs. Only widespread use of the packages will really bring these out, which I think could be better achieved with the addition of a truly "unstable" keyword like az is suggesting. Just my 2 cents... -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list