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 43B4D13877A for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:23:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B064E08F0; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f179.google.com (mail-ve0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC2C6E0870 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:20:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f179.google.com with SMTP id sa20so8694994veb.10 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:19:59 -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=fVlnNKYX12/kUWm2n4V9iZMP21yjzIsDWrbgGS/Cjrs=; b=l0aZBKQXzrr9g041AXFD7cm86uDTUbdhpR8F6JPKZtcTT86oLqCvcWszKtmnQkCgY/ pufBA9is66jok1fys/fCtlgUcODaa9vA7EgEsSHbAF28HpV+l3PRh9HI1oY+buh9suLX tAtXfU00wep8BuqUy+XwVX6q9H/k55rmoTSCQbTyi4b7qrGAzfY+GMvaJlBTDz7vFXwF hFURKYk3DS0BnNoIoVocFLaKKm/c7YbuRcL0r3BjZb7eqXnAFZadBqh/Eq9z+WqGI+yo a0J5G6Qovj7Xx/qLMTPP5upQ5cG9iaueNajH+G/wqsZBF0FM+L9EIPa94phAJ8DtYDDj LONg== 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 10.221.27.8 with SMTP id ro8mr5388480vcb.30.1404155999841; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:19:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.72.19 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:19:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140630211106.26e1bed5@gentoo.org> References: <20140630040153.GA668@linux1> <20140630161555.15ab3403@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140630211106.26e1bed5@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:19:59 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9QvBzbI29Is89G0U3SWKlk9d3w0 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: 32317a54-49c8-4836-8ad1-c0a09c0e67b1 X-Archives-Hash: aeaaeb1d238abb54256442a8906386cc On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > A test of a package to determine whether it appears to be working OK or > whether it destructs your system isn't too much asked for; if it works > it can then be ~arch tested, if it breaks you have a bug # for p.mask. > > If someone can't test it at all, why was it added in the first place? So that it can be tested? Maybe the maintainer doesn't have the ability to test the package (might require special hardware). Maybe the maintainer doesn't have the time to test it right away, but wants to allow others to do so (especially if others show an interest). In my example of mythtv, testing might require first updating all the front-ends to be current and ensure that nothing breaks (it might only be emerge --sync'ed monthly). Then a window has to exist where nothing will be recorded. Then everything gets brought down and backed up (not a big deal, but nobody is watching TV for a while). Then you update everything and see if it works, perhaps having to tweak things a bit. Then you do the quick tests (record shows, play things back, check the web front end). Then you leave it alone for a day and see if anybody screams - best not to do this if you'll be really busy the next day. If people are clamoring for an update, it may be more productive to just let them have it with a disclaimer about quality, rather than just putting them off for a week or two. Sure, I can set up yet another overlay, which will be empty 99% of the time. But, what is the harm in just using a mask? I've yet to leave one sitting around for years (well, not for testing at least). Rich