Alec Warner schrieb: > 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. >
Why do you need package.mask here? If you know, it does not work on that arch, dont keyword it. If you know it does not work anywhere, why would you even think about adding that package? -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
