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 alone get us a lot of bugs >>> every release without people realizing what it means...) and people >>> expect packages to work in the tree > maybe Not p.masked packages they don't. Just state it outright, maybe even fetch-restrict the package and warn them... >>> - less bugs no one can do anything about > does not apply *How* does making it into a semi-official one-purpose overlay reduce the number of bugs users report? Either you're banning it into a non-Gentoo-owned overlay, or you're just betting they would get the reason why it's not in an overlay, same applies to p.mask. >>> - easier contribution of users in an overlay, testing of hacks or other >>> stuff to make it work > does not apply I'm afraid I have to agree with Michael here. Proxies would do that, and users are still free to experiment with overlaid version, I don't see how this makes much of a difference. >>> - making clear that gentoo does not support software with such low QA > does not apply It applies perfectly. It's a p.mask for a reason, and can convey reasons. It's your package, do what you want, but stop just trying to force your views into suggestions, just because you already reached your conclusion, please. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
