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 ED2691392EF for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:15:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A803E0AA1; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:52:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qmta05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.48]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97CCE0839 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.92]) by qmta05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id LiTm1o0051zF43QA5jq2ft; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:50:02 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.13] ([50.190.84.14]) by omta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Ljq01o00S0JZ7Re8kjq150; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:50:01 +0000 Message-ID: <53B1BF62.2020007@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:49:54 -0400 From: Joshua Kinard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; 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> <53B14A33.7040108@gentoo.org> <20140630172738.28f9f32a@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <20140630172738.28f9f32a@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1404157802; bh=QW3r+DQndN6NRuciOKJvyx2jAA0kkaBcHjFudvlBKZk=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=usDLX27hAYtH/e4wb2rX3Tyb3ecd4O/pkl9oJYvfQsxuCFRmQ3IDfV0gZrdOYabvt ZJFnyWo68llegj9LeVa4JvS3vBczGOyfgNtoX20W4iPOUZi5Z/RZFgPajIxY28wjCD U4kdWYBo+BHtT0Qk3XwbLVl9tb316Z5GI5VL6JV84wTQ0D1sxUt13V+UgVgZkovwmg Vbdo2MAQjGvRraI1U09DYw4gYUOb3eubDTlsl+r74KLEDI6kbrxbBTIlCpEOxOeEdB /RENbvyJNIJHYYiwSig0NGqOVou+gwEPc4qqmXxyzog54gZGrM1jZWNqRN6yQTs/T/ UmJ+DZTVcmtEw== X-Archives-Salt: e279bf27-828d-49f8-b6c0-101223ef6cbc X-Archives-Hash: 86903389d11d9ca42240c97f872eff0c On 06/30/2014 11:27, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:37:11 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> You're basically asking for the practice of hard-masks for testing to >> be banned. > > My original point in the other thread was that "masked for testing" is > not a valid reason. A reference to an outstanding issue, bug report, > discussion or other resources would help users determine whether it's > safe for them to unmask an ebuild locally. "Masked for testing" offers > no guidance at all and is nothing more than a lazy substitute for real > content. I would agree to a point. In the case of some toolchain related packages, like gcc and binutils, "masked for testing" keeps potentially dangerous system updates from propagating out to a majority of users. However, those users and developers who are quite avid about being on the forefront of the latest and greatest already know how to unmask such packages and test them out. So a mask on "=sys-devel/gcc-4.9.0" with the reason of "Masked for testing" makes perfect sense, especially since this version of gcc enables strong stack-protection. -- Joshua Kinard Gentoo/MIPS kumba@gentoo.org 4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28 "The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." --Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic