On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:56:39 -0700 "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If pmask is not for testing...what is it for? The name says it all - to prevent people from automatically emerging stuff, even when ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~arch is set. First you try for the new version: # emerge -va www-client/opera which doesn't work (it gives you the current version!). Then you try with a specific version: # emerge -va =www-client/opera-9.6* which gives you a good reason to either unmask or not unmask: !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "=www-client/opera-9.6*" have been masked. !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request: - www-client/opera-9.60_pre2440 (masked by: package.mask) /keeps/gentoo/portage/profiles/package.mask: # Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (26 Aug 2008) # www-client/opera snapshots are masked. Please read # http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/ - www-client/opera-9.60_pre2436 (masked by: package.mask) - [...] If it merely says that the masking is for "testing" (and especially if testing takes many months and apparently takes place in secret) the whole point is lost on the people who have come so far and still want to press on - they'll simply ignore your "warning against testing". There are various valid reasons, but testing means you want to expose stuff, not hide it. There's simply no way you'd package.mask something, and at the same time explain you want it tested. Because you're preventing most ~arch systems from getting automatically widely exposed to the stuff you're intending to get tested. Even saying that it would kill puppies would be more valid. Just be honest and tell people what is going on. Tell them that if they use Opera snapshots, they shouldn't care about losing mail or experience frequent crashes while browsing. Anything really, just don't tell them you're "testing" or you find yourself excluding them from the party with a really bad excuse. Kind regards, JeR
