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 ; 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 ; 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 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050723) 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] first council meeting References: <1126897217.7832.49.camel@Memoria.anyarch.net> <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