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 447E213877A for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:04:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E22C7E0A82; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:04:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f181.google.com (mail-ve0-f181.google.com [209.85.128.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA8F0E088F for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:04:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f181.google.com with SMTP id db11so11661626veb.12 for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:04:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=xpr0yXjRMQspJXgIP9D0BBYKG4BXEdgJNSKkh3pAhb4=; b=Ak0LJO3sGDauLsUGjOWTfGdKh0V6vloj5lO7CuC43/2TTt6gCYJdmmWQlDi77E3o35 F0sgMsPCNgD+ktbPPmM/4y1Zj3QGvlKvJ4eNCpWre6N0QK4y2aeSx2taAEEQk2xLnnJd o1gl0Mf1viuwwNlT6ImGMCsI+HNleGGJU1Z5wr4mp/1o8YEhsA6a3PwBYS+d7WfKuDCD GmWfl/ZsINW/66jyU1iGtFATRPQhr7oqCMxt207BsKyUPB+aY8gDukcJtDFgWTrZtCnK MEAuH0vV/La/sPqT10CBYx4JvRa7NyfnDHXQTubdZCvu7JAt/gR6fofYNcv0x886DReq JXRQ== 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 X-Received: by 10.221.20.199 with SMTP id qp7mr50519408vcb.24.1404324278152; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.72.19 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:04:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140702195611.5bea8ddc@gentoo.org> References: <20140630040153.GA668@linux1> <20140630161555.15ab3403@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140630211106.26e1bed5@gentoo.org> <20140702195611.5bea8ddc@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:04:38 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: I5u1lxKH6W_u-uTR9UVCu_3JnSs Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: b625986d-498b-4c3d-a17e-258e1e4c36a6 X-Archives-Hash: c8dc68e9468ff6d128d8ad8ad19249bd On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > That is an edge case; it's somewhat hard to maintain a package if you > can't test it, and there are occasions (eg. Amazon EC2 related > packages) where this is indeed needed. I don't see a need to introduce > that masked though; but again, it depends on how edgy it is... > No argument there. I think that use of package masks for testing-related purposes should be rare and short-lived. I just don't think that banning them entirely is the right solution. If they're done right they probably shouldn't be noticed by the majority. Rich