Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask

[Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>]

On 11/14/2013 08:13 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> So just "fix it as problems appear and/or we have some spare time" ...
> 
> Have any problems appeared that impact anybody who hasn't tried to
> take advantage of the new multilib features (ie modified their config
> files/etc)?

Apart from me masking a few things because portage couldn't figure out a
way to a consistent state, and all that ...

I mean, not that we had lots of users in #gentoo WTFing all over the
place, or something. Oh wait, we did.

>>
>> Well, you accidentally cut out all references to TommyD's work again.
>> Almost as if you don't even want to discuss a working proper solution
>> that just doesn't have the ego hammering it in ...
> 
> We get it - there are two competing approaches to multilib...  That's
> perfectly fine - we can sort out which one works better once they both
> work.  

Given that one has been properly developed in an overlay, and one is now
forcefully hammered into the main tree, it's a fait accompli.

I have no idea how you think we can sort out anything with a pre-set
conclusion.

> It would be more of a concern if maintainers were being asked
> to maintain things twice, but as far as I'm aware the developers of
> each of the competing approaches have been doing most of the work
> themselves.
Apart from the maintainers that now have to figure out the funny bugs of
the in-tree work ... unlike a certain overlay. But I keep repeating
myself, which is redundantly redundant.

> 
> Of course, there could be issues I simply haven't heard of.
> 
>> There's this thing called overlay ;)
>> Once you have everything prepared commit it all masked.
>> A few days later if there's no obvious bug reports unmask it and duck.
> 
> I'm not sure an overlay is a good solution for a tree-wide change that
> will take months to roll out.  It is great for testing the core
> features with a small testing group, but the implementation is always
> going to have to hit the whole tree and all its consumers with little
> formal testing at that scale.

So instead of figuring out bugs the proper way ... we let users hit
them? I feel tempted to use the letters "A" and "Q" together.

Also, I could again redundantly point at a certain overlay.

Oh well. I guess I should complain less and package.mask more to express
my feelings...


Have a nice day,

Patrick