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 1B58D13877A for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:45:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D414E0ABE; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:44:42 +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 6BA9EE0AA0 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:44:36 +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 20924340395; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:44:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53B1BE15.4070209@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:44:21 -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 CC: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch References: <20140630040153.GA668@linux1> <53B1809F.9070807@gentoo.org> <20140630173654.0c70c367@pomiot.lan> <53B184E3.5040902@gentoo.org> <20140630211446.2ae5cd98@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20140630211446.2ae5cd98@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: c9363e44-fc3a-4382-843d-5eeab3368c58 X-Archives-Hash: fb78494570b4213fed4a62a4181ffa5a -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 30/06/14 03:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: > >> On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07 Ian Stakenvicius >>> napisał(a): >>> >>>> 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 > > Setting up an overlay for this and poking a stick at a few > developers to try it out could help as an intermediary test, to > ensure that you don't break every ~arch user in the progress. > Better than "all or nothing"... > > Or i can just use the same stick to poke them about the p.masked version in the tree. :) All of this just means, to me, that as long as the packages indeed are actively being pursued for testing, I think it's still fine to use package.mask. However, if things aren't being actively tested (ie they've been forgotten about) then probably whomever added the mask should be pinged relentlessly about it until it's resolved one way or another. At least, I would find it perfectly acceptable to being pinged on any mask I've left rotting in the tree. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlOxvhUACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBqfQD/b4Rj0qoczFNwQO6jfnQjkL74 wFvxDV4SvER3BOyZRKkBAK5C63zG0YEAZvpfYTd6CwNLeX4cNdZXuVyMTqbPhx5k =DbOV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----