From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5018113877A for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:22:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 88250E0AF1; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:22:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAADAE0AD1 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:22:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.160] (CPE002401f30b73-CM78cd8ec1b205.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.181.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98137340314 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:22:19 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53B1809F.9070807@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:22:07 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch References: <20140630040153.GA668@linux1> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 78fe79f0-6db2-43f9-a09f-0a1885a71059 X-Archives-Hash: 642cf24eb1eb70552718f682b7eca0a6 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 30/06/14 09:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell >>> wrote: >>>> This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be >>>> short-term, then it can as well just land in ~arch. >>> >>> 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. > > Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN > TESTED AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that is > it. Or maybe they tested it in a very limited set of circumstances > but know that other untested circumstances are important to the > users and they have definite plans to get them tested. > Here's a great example of this -- dev-libs/nss-3.16-r1 is p.masked by me for testing, because when I converted it to multilib i needed to change the way it does some internal ABI determination tests, and although I know it does work fine on multilib-amd64 and (non-multilib) x86, I am not confident without more testing that it will work for cross-compiles or other non-multilib arches. As such, it -is- in the tree, but I've masked it until I can test it myself in these circumstances or find someone else that can do it for me. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlOxgJ8ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPC8zAD/XwulPJp4f3xNFe4ZP7gE+kmp qhmdvJjUFyWW8j1dTHMA/jFc/mrH/dnyq/MJWBlUbEFY3ccebpLw/8C6/IaSeXw4 =iKL1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----