On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:16:22PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: > Vapier wrote:[Fri Sep 16 2005, 03:15:26PM EDT] > > not really ... sometimes you want to keep a package in unstable > > forever (like the cvs snapshots i make of e17), or until you work > > some quirks/features out for a new revbump which you would want > > stable > > Why wouldn't you put these in package.mask?
Why would you ? ;) If package foo isn't known to be broken, or known to
break other packages, and generally just works(tm), why make it just that
little bit harder for other people to test it ?
Forgetting that it's just one extra step to take before emerging (adding
an atom for package to /etc/portage/p.unmask), in addition to adding an
atom for it to /etc/portage/p.keywords also, there's also the fact that
package.mask is a dumping ground for packages that fit one (or more) of
the following:
* is vulnerable to exploitation and the like, or;
* is broken on some level (crashes, munched goldfish, ..); or
* requires extensive testing with the rest of the system i.e.,
could _completely_ break ones install.
In other words, it's unstable, and many users (including myself) stay
away from packages therein.
So, the question is: when did ~arch and packake.mask become synonymous ?
Best,
Elfyn
--
Elfyn McBratney
beu/irc.freenode.net http://dev.gentoo.org/~beu/
+------------O.o--------------------- http://dev.gentoo.org/~beu/pubkey.asc
PGP Key ID: 0x69DF17AD
PGP Key Fingerprint:
DBD3 B756 ED58 B1B4 47B9 B3BD 8D41 E597 69DF 17AD
pgpvyf6gdlxQn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
