Re: [gentoo-user] What happens with masked packages?

["Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <bss03@volumehost.com>]

On Saturday 25 February 2006 12:57, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> 
wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] What happens with masked packages?':
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:57:43 -0600 "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
>
> <bss03@volumehost.com> wrote:
> | > ~arch means a package is a candidate for going into arch after
> | > further testing, if said testing does not turn up new bugs. This
> | > means that both the ebuild *and* the package should be likely to be
> | > stable.
> |
> | So, betas shouldn't ever be ~arch?  Or is your definition of stable
> | broad enough to include betas?
>
> Entirely dependent on the upstream. I've had Vim beta releases in
> ~arch, for example, because I'm confident in upstream's ability to do
> beta releases without screwing up.

So, it's based on the collective opinion of the gentoo developers?  
Wouldn't it be better to put that in the hands of the gentoo user?

> The -* abuse is one of the many things on QA's list of "stuff we want
> to get fixed". However, it's considered extremely low priority on
> existing packages.

As it should be, since there are well-known user work-arounds.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
bss03@volumehost.com
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list