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 7236B13877A for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:07:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D8CF2E0881; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:07:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f173.google.com (mail-ve0-f173.google.com [209.85.128.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00A93E07E1 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:07:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id db11so8523661veb.32 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:07:17 -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=jMBBxQgD3jb09voXyR6+611va1PWyCukaidEoAqCAcg=; b=gH1GVu+Hs2/Fj9ce8i1IcfwhPP14FlaL77Rdug+J6rXQQSTBuZugyWqV0s7w/dhfpW 7k+q/qXEXfLMKq+XevUEyUaIWN4UDl2gg57X1Xm7XcOizV4NihaNj63SE/gHLyrJvYZr 9IOpmMKW/rPe3JU5jYS0JS935Baa+e6pcQy56C7eKLKTAdEsbtGrd8OWCxoBHoVJGopa lbwEdONcfwc+4OX1Gp9u6keSwvWc+xZ1G3mnWlWnJK4m9kZfXWZVMWtOJbDWWO59a6Fq kCQvtOcptBvB/MxUD4NNID8ypbDVjQOsf8orzjmN0WUI2/YdKpQsR4k1hzvbXLTaiUQT otZQ== 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 10.220.251.134 with SMTP id ms6mr20327094vcb.10.1404148037106; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.72.19 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:07:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140630163235.GA2521@linux1> References: <20140630040153.GA668@linux1> <53B1809F.9070807@gentoo.org> <20140630173654.0c70c367@pomiot.lan> <53B184E3.5040902@gentoo.org> <20140630181345.702381e2@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140630163235.GA2521@linux1> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:07:17 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: mY5eA-GXTvqwlWGQWE7Jmomg6w8 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: 58f7b820-fdb9-4b03-992a-3f1569243478 X-Archives-Hash: 16e641c59dc3f7a74d16fc867ecafe35 On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:13:45PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400 >> Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> > 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 >> >> Which is great, because then you have an actual test result, whereas >> before you had nothing but a stupid mask. >> >> And lots of people are suddenly very much interested in getting any and >> all bugs fixed in the new ebuild, whereas before you only had the stupid >> mask. >> >> >> jer > > I am going to agree with Jer on this. > > As said before, ~arch users know that their systems will break > sometimes, so if the package works for you, unleash it on ~arch. If > someone using a configuration you don't have finds that it breaks, I'm > sure it would be reported. Then you could determine whether the bug is > severe enough to warrant a mask. > We're not talking about packages that work for the maintainer. We're talking about packages where the maintainer doesn't know if they work. Or at least, those are the packages I'm talking about. Everybody seems to think that this is a debate between having newer ebuilds in the tree masked vs unmasked. This is a debate between having newer ebuilds in the tree masked vs not having them in the tree at all. Nobody is going to put an ebuild in the tree unmasked if they don't know that it is going to work, and per earlier comments anybody who does that probably shouldn't have commit privs. Rules won't make maintainers do more work. They can only prevent maintainers from doing certain kinds of work. That is why I tend to oppose more rules unless they actually are preventing some kind of harm, or having a likely benefit. I just don't see the benefit here. I'm fine with a policy that says that packages should only be masked for testing if they're actually being tested and there is some kind of roadmap for getting rid of the mask. I don't like seeing 3 year old masks in the profile either. Let's try to curtail that kind of thing. However, I think we're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water here. I cringe anytime I hear somebody say that ~arch has fewer issues than stable, but the solution to that isn't to go looking for opportunities to break ~arch. Rich