On 05/11/2012 09:32, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Being hard masked is a little bit stronger than what I had in mind. I > was thinking, "no known problems, but it hasn't been tested > thoroughly." Users with a death wish could run it, and it might work. > That would leave package.mask for known brokenness: build failures, > security issues, etc.
Build failures shouldn't be p.masked, build failures should be fixed or removed. Ibidem for security issues in the most cases. Seriously, open the package.mask file and just look for the word "testing" then come back to argue that it's not what it's for, please. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes [email protected] — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
