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 Pett
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:26:25 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> Afaiu pmasks are rather meant for
> a) new, very hot versions of libraries/tools that can break your
> system in more than one part
> b) security masks, temporary masks and other masks we expect to remove
> in the future
You can just summarize
On 22/07/2013 01:50, hasufell wrote:
> It does not apply, because we still support it officially in our main
> tree as a distribution, no matter if it's p.masked or not.
No we don't. P.masked software is *explicitly* not supported.
> Anyway... if people disagree, then it doesn't make much sense t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/22/2013 02:34 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 2. Overlay package.* (accept one version of one package from a
> particular overlay, mask all packages in an overlay that aren't
> explicitly unmasked, don't apply package.(un)mask from one overlay
> t
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> We're starting to drift off topic here, but I've always felt that this
> is something that could be improved on. I'm not saying that any of
> this should just be thrown together, but some of the following might
> be useful:
>
> 1. Overlay de
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
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-07-22, o godz. 00:16:31
> hasufell napisał(a):
>> - users have to run "layman -a foo" ...I hope they will manage (and the
>> masking reason will be updated to explain where to look for googleearth
>> ebuilds)
>
> Then to get *a sing
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.
>>> - less user confusion (the checksum failures al
On 07/22/2013 01:20 AM, Michael Weber wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 01:03 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 00:35 +0200, hasufell wrote:
>>> On 07/22/2013 12:33 AM, Michał Górny wrote: I'd either use a
>>> separate single-purpose overlay or add it to science-overlay.
>
>
>> If it's a sepa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/22/2013 01:03 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 00:35 +0200, hasufell wrote:
>> On 07/22/2013 12:33 AM, Michał Górny wrote: I'd either use a
>> separate single-purpose overlay or add it to science-overlay.
>
>
> If it's a separa
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 00:35 +0200, hasufell wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 12:33 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2013-07-22, o godz. 00:16:31 hasufell
> > napisał(a):
> >
> >> On 07/22/2013 12:07 AM, Duncan wrote:
> >>> hasufell posted on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:22:24 +0200 as
> >>> excerpted:
> >>>
>
On 07/22/2013 12:22 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:16 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
>> pros:
>> - consistency of tree quality
does not apply to p.mask'd packages
>> - less user confusion (the checksum failures alone get us a lot of bugs
>> every release without people realizi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2013 12:33 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-07-22, o godz. 00:16:31 hasufell
> napisał(a):
>
>> On 07/22/2013 12:07 AM, Duncan wrote:
>>> hasufell posted on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:22:24 +0200 as
>>> excerpted:
>>>
solution: Treeclean i
Dnia 2013-07-22, o godz. 00:16:31
hasufell napisał(a):
> On 07/22/2013 12:07 AM, Duncan wrote:
> > hasufell posted on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:22:24 +0200 as excerpted:
> >
> >> solution: Treeclean it and maintain it in an overlay (maybe
> >> science-overlay). That's exactly what overlays are for...
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:16 PM, hasufell wrote:
> pros:
> - consistency of tree quality
> - 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
> - less bugs no one can
On 07/22/2013 12:07 AM, Duncan wrote:
> hasufell posted on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:22:24 +0200 as excerpted:
>
>> solution: Treeclean it and maintain it in an overlay (maybe
>> science-overlay). That's exactly what overlays are for... experimental
>> stuff.
>
> What's the pros/cons of overlay vs. in-
hasufell posted on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:22:24 +0200 as excerpted:
> solution: Treeclean it and maintain it in an overlay (maybe
> science-overlay). That's exactly what overlays are for... experimental
> stuff.
What's the pros/cons of overlay vs. in-tree-but-masked for something like
this? In-tre
17 matches
Mail list logo
