* [gentoo-dev] Re: package.mask vs ~arch
@ 2014-08-01 9:13 99% ` Steven J. Long
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Steven J. Long @ 2014-08-01 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:01:53PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > 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.
Nor is it a dumping ground for something you can't be bothered to overlay.
> > I agree that masking for testing is like having a 3rd branch, but I'm
> > not convinced that this is a bad thing. ~arch should be for packages
> > that have received rudimentary testing and which are ready for testing
> > by a larger population. Masking should be used for packages that
> > haven't received rudimentary testing - they might not have been tested
> > at all.
>
> The concern with this argument is the definition of rudimentary testing
> is subjective, especially when a package supports many possible
> configurations.
Well it can never be fresh from upstream, even if that upstream is a
Gentoo developer. eudev is more of a sanity filter, and doesn't claim
to be upstream. If anything we want more constraints when a Gentoo dev
is "lead" on a project, as there are even less dykes in the way.
> I think some packages need wide testing before they go stable, and that
> is where ~arch can help out.
IOW some packages don't need "wide" testing, which by your yardstick, is
what anyone with experience/common-sense would call "a beta release."
> In particular, I would argue that for system-critical packages, users
> should be very careful about running ~arch unless they know what the
> fallout can be.
Yes, and so should Gentoo, when faced with "developers" who think
themselves exceptions to the rules everyone else should live by.
--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2014-06-30 4:01 [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch William Hubbs
2014-08-01 9:13 99% ` [gentoo-dev] " Steven J. Long
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox