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 DFC0913877A for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:41:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E96C8E0B4B; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:40:48 +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 C06EEE0B46 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:40:32 +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 8505F3400A4; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:40:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53B184E3.5040902@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -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: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_G=F3rny?= CC: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch References: <20140630040153.GA668@linux1> <53B1809F.9070807@gentoo.org> <20140630173654.0c70c367@pomiot.lan> In-Reply-To: <20140630173654.0c70c367@pomiot.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: f6c33691-4e2d-4531-85f6-4be9328d5923 X-Archives-Hash: 78774a94483a9e3ca81891f4d483a2e8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07 Ian Stakenvicius > napisał(a): > >> -----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. > > But... if you unmask it, someone will test it and report whether > it works :P. > But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be quite a lot at this point. :D -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlOxhOIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPD4NwD/Spcjj7VPGNIz+FCVTkSUDmKZ ghVqFhuiemJO7+G62wgA/jc7bpyPsu8S7wbbNs3UYGqE//MyVYNWHDmOoXDZ3Qsk =FEfS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----