On 19:18 Mon 02 Mar , Alistair Bush wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> Combine this with package.mask. To me, experimental means masked. > > Experimental within java means a lot of things, or at least it should. > Anything from user contributed and non-dev qa'd to packages with bundled > jars to attempts to package projects like maven which are difficult and > time consuming ( and which attempts to do so have failed numerous times > before might I add ). > > Asking non-dev contributors to handle package.mask's would be a "less > than ideal". Resulting in "interesting breakages". Currently by adding > java-experimental ( which might I add isn't available thru layman ) you > are accepting that risk.
I don't understand the distinction you're making here. Either way, users explicitly take a manual action to enable additional experimental packages (unmasking or adding an overlay full of them). In fact, I see the separate-overlay option as worse because then you get *everything* from the overlay, whereas package.mask is more granular and can be fine-tuned per-package. Could you explain what you see as the important difference that makes package.mask bad and a separate overlay good? -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
pgpd33P1B6Dqm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
