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 1EJk5U-0001jm-AR
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:55:32 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j8Q3m5r3020690;
	Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:48:05 GMT
Received: from mta10.adelphia.net (mta10.adelphia.net [68.168.78.202])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j8Q3kLKo020417
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:46:22 GMT
Received: from [192.168.0.165] (really [68.168.137.100])
          by mta10.adelphia.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.01 201-2131-118-101-20041129) with ESMTP
          id <20050926035308.REZD12165.mta10.adelphia.net@[192.168.0.165]>
          for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
          Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:53:08 -0400
Message-ID: <433772B5.9050909@leetworks.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:01:57 -0400
From: Andrew Muraco <tuxp3@leetworks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050723)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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] first council meeting
References: <1126897217.7832.49.camel@Memoria.anyarch.net> <BLUZKR.1873110678A9OIWK@gentoo.org> <200509171617.10869.vapier@gentoo.org> <20050918064637.GB18094@superlupo.rechner> <20050918124024.GB7222@pluto.atHome>
In-Reply-To: <20050918124024.GB7222@pluto.atHome>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: a138375a-38ce-45d0-a434-9149c161b0ac
X-Archives-Hash: 97c0507ef5b7107fd6f01dcd827567f5

In response to all replies Thus far,
I as a User,
I expect that arch works (no matter what) - no arguments there
I assume that ~arch will work 95% of the time.
I never ever touch anything in p.mask.

Now, where do we put packages that could work for most users, but they 
might not work for the other 49% of users?
p.mask seems to prevent that 49% of users from trying it, and reporting 
those bugs, but on the other hand ~arch means that 49% of users using 
~arch will have problem x,y, or z.

Now understand, this is the viewpoint of myself, and I have used a full 
~arch system for a while, and i didn't ever run into anything more then 
the occasional package with a new config, or config update that i didnt 
do properly. (lazy-ness)

things to consider
1) would ?arch become the old ~arch, if it was implemented?
2) would people actually try to run a full ?arch system?
3) #2, would it be possible without breakage?

I personally like the idea of the UNSTABLE="" because to me, it changes 
nothing, but allows the AT and PM to communicate, on a per-ebuild basis.

(comments welcome)
just some thoughts,
Andrew


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list