On Friday 16 September 2005 04:43 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 16 September 2005 04:25 pm, Daniel Ostrow wrote: > > His point (and it's an unfortunately valid one) as I understand it is > > that our user base has been (mis)educated to avoid packages in p.mask > > for fear of breaking things too badly. As such it gets an inherently far > > smaller test base then packages in ~arch do. > > arch stable > ~arch unstable > ?arch should work fine, but not 100% sure yet > package.mask known to be broken in some way
actually, going with say 'testing.mask' instead of '?arch' may be better ... reinforce the fact that this is a package-level issue rather than arch-specific -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
