On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200 Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please people, > > > if you want to get something tested, then don't mask it. Um... no? One thing that package.mask has always been used for is temporarily masking a package until it can be tested and then unleashed on the general population. It's not like we're putting masked stuff in the tree with the hope that someone will find it and try it out. You mask a package, ask the user or whoever to test it, and unmask it when it's ready. We don't just throw untested stuff into the tree when we suspect problems with it. ~arch is not a playground. Already one of the major complaints we see against Gentoo time and time again is that it breaks too often and the maintenance burden is too high. Why would we want to exacerbate that? We don't /want/ ~arch systems to get "automatically widely exposed to the stuff we're intending to get tested". That's the whole point of masking it! We want it tested by a few people before we expose it to the unwashed masses. So, no, I'll continue using package.mask for testing just as it always has been. Sorry. -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
