hasufell posted on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 02:50:04 +0200 as excerpted: [Where to reply? This seems the best spot in general. Subthread is discussing permanent in-tree p.mask vs. overlay. The below points were supposed to be the pros of the overlay choice.]
> On 07/22/2013 01:49 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: >> On 21/07/2013 23:38, hasufell wrote: >>>>> - consistency of tree quality >>> does not apply to p.mask'd packages >> >> p.mask says that the package is in _bad_ quality, explicitly, and you >> can say how, so "does not apply" are not really the words I'd use. >> > I did not know that p.mask is used indefinitely for low quality packages > and I don't like that concept. Yes, some packages remain in-tree permanently p.masked. The mask gives a reason, and unmasking means users accept whatever risks or conditions you place in the reason. In addition to unmasking, if you REALLY want to discourage use, you can use some variant of the test for pkgname_I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING=1 trick. >>>>> - less user confusion (the checksum failures alone get us a lot of >>>>> bugs every release without people realizing what it means...) and >>>>> people expect packages to work in the tree >>> maybe >> >> Not p.masked packages they don't. Just state it outright, maybe even >> fetch-restrict the package and warn them... Absolutely. >>>>> - less bugs no one can do anything about >>> does not apply >> >> *How* does making it into a semi-official one-purpose overlay reduce >> the number of bugs users report? Either you're banning it into a >> non-Gentoo-owned overlay, or you're just betting they would get the >> reason why it's not in an overlay, same applies to p.mask. > > It will reduce the number of bugs, because there will be no bugtracker, > but only pull-requests. It would not be hosted on o.g.o. which means > gentoo bugs are not allowed. State in the p.mask that bugs will be ignored and/or that people filing bugs without patches will be summarily laughed at, and be done with it. >>>>> - easier contribution of users in an overlay, testing of hacks or >>>>> other stuff to make it work >>> does not apply >> >> I'm afraid I have to agree with Michael here. Proxies would do that, >> and users are still free to experiment with overlaid version, I don't >> see how this makes much of a difference. Actually, I'll give you (hasufell) this one. This is the one point I agree with, and it may well be enough on its own. Proxies can help, but IMO that's a lot of hassle to go thru for a permanently package-masked package. With an overlay, OTOH, non-dev volunteers can get direct access. >>>>> - making clear that gentoo does not support software with such low >>>>> QA >>> does not apply >> >> It applies perfectly. It's a p.mask for a reason, and can convey >> reasons. Agreed with Diego here. If the p.mask message says unsupported, don't file bugs or you'll be summarily laughed at... doesn't get much clearer than that. > Anyway... if people disagree, then it doesn't make much sense to remove > it. Otherwise it will pop up in the tree sooner or later again. FWIW, I wasn't strongly disagreeing with the removal to overlay or even full removal (I've never used the package and don't have that level of interest). My question was real: Given the context discussing reasons for removal but an intention to continue making it available in an overlay, I simply wondered why the in-tree p.mask option that I'd seen used on a few other packages apparently hadn't even been considered. Now that the option has been discussed, given you're the one that will be continuing the limited maintenance the package will get wherever it is, I've no further objection whatever you choose. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
