On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:23:33 +0200 Dawid Węgliński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. We have a "testing" branch and a "stable" branch, defined by the KEYWORDS variable in the ebuilds. Package.masking stuff saying you're "testing" is at the least uninformative and highly confusing and unfriendly to would-be testers when in the very same context this already means something different (namely, it's been too short a while, wait one or two months for this version to go stable, as the ~arch keywords would suggest). The same term shouldn't be used to denote two ways of masking ebuilds, but that's beside the point of providing good reasons to package.mask ebuilds. > > 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. Welcome to the starting point of this thread! ;-) Kind regards, JeR