On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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).
~arch has always been for testing ebuilds; not packages. You should not be using ~arch to test stuff you know doesn't work; that is what package.mask is for; to prevent users from accidentally installing broken shit. > > 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. > I completely agree that useful messages in package.mask are important. -Alec >> > 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 > >
