On Friday 03 of October 2008 04:14:54 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > 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".
Same way one may see "masked by missing keyword" note and interprete as "not for your arch"... So a quick note in p.mask can say it is for testing purposes, so user can choose either to install it or not. > > 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. I don't think it's ok. ~arch isn't training ground. It's supposed to work, so asking arch teams to keywords packages that are not supposed to work isn't good. > > 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. This is the place i agree with you. Anyway i think package still should be p.masked with good explanation of why it is masked. -- Cheers, Dawid Węgliński
