On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:46 PM Joonas Niilola <juip...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 11/4/20 8:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > 4. If somebody finds one they probably have to add some random > > overlay to their config, which causes this package to become > > available, probably along with 47 other packages that can potentially > > conflict with other things in the tree, all with zero QA. > (It's common practice to mask the entire overlay then unmask the > package(s) you need from it) >
Do you really think that users who just blindly run "emerge --autounmask-write" are going to be both masking and unmasking packages by hand (per your other email)? And how are they any better off if they do? They just end up in the exact same state, except now we have zero control over their experience instead of only a little control. > > Certainly it is good to have snapshotted versions that get more QA > > where appropriate, and that should probably be communicated. When it > > is done with an "or else" attached the result is likely to be that a > > lot of stuff just gets removed, with little benefit... > > > Well my intention is to get up-to-date packages KEYWORDED properly, for > better visibility and support. > Then why not do that, instead of removing things? We should be careful with QA policies to avoid the concept that we want somebody to do A, but we can't make them do A, so we tell them they're not allowed to do B unless they also do A, and then we're shocked when nobody wants to do B now. If A is absolutely essential then maybe it is better to not have B to ensure that A happens. However, often A is a nice-to-have, and we end up pruning stuff that really isn't that bad because we were just trying to force devs to do something else. If we want snapshots, then we should just add snapshots. Removing the package doesn't accomplish adding a snapshot. -- Rich
