Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the
| summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should
| cover those things that sorda work on the arch, but you rather want
| developers or experienced users that can patch bugs to look at it ...
Those go in per-profile package.masks. It's more flexible than a
keyword.
This is true, however it requires users to possibly make a gazillion
entries in their /etc/portage/package.unmask if they want to use a lot
of what are considered truly unstable packages. You might say they
could just symlink their profile package.mask to
/etc/portage/package.unmask, but then, maybe somebody doesn't want to
unmask *everything* in there. You can argue that the extra effort
required ensures that only competent and persistent users are testing
this software, but I'm not sure that is the case (note that I don't have
any good way to justify this statement...just speculation).
Anyway, getting to my point, I think small arches such as mips would
benefit from reducing the barriers required to test this sort of stuff.
I know I've probably abused ~arch by the strictest definitions on
several occasions. Otherwise, I would be practically the *only* person
testing things, and that is not a good way to uncover bugs. Only
widespread use of the packages will really bring these out, which I
think could be better achieved with the addition of a truly "unstable"
keyword like az is suggesting. Just my 2 cents...
-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
