-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 17 September 2005 05:28 am, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > >>How about if the maintainer wants wider testing, i.e. wants to move >>it out of package.mask and into ~arch but isn't confident it's ready >>yet for arch, adding a string variable to ebuilds indicating why the >>maintainer considers the package unstable, eg: > > > i really want to get away from the idea of 'package.mask is for testing > packages' ... its current dual role as both masking 'testing' packages and > 'broken' packages is wrong imo > > we dont want to try reeducating our users to not be afraid of package.mask > because a lot of things in there they *should* be afraid of > -mike
Why not merely add an overlay to the main tree and put the testing packages in the overlay. Then instruct users to add the overlay to their portage settings. Testing overlay for testing, p.mask for broken packages. /usr/portage/overlay/cat/pkg/bla.ebuild or /usr/portage/testing/cat/pkg/bla.ebuild and so on... - -Alec Warner -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBQyyRwmzglR5RwbyYAQJzOg/9GtwWPrshqv+24mXpWzjyXJddH/dT2sHF WLf/BJOLJtsjsPuD/3V/R5RoiMhNAfXbmxsFDmp/Ny2LEJNue534+vMsiPFKRn3q zLN38ldGkDbRbx3mXkpWlc4SauRasl06Wv2IgoLc0fO37Evv1IzJVG0vMA8o2js7 ZMvGegiW+kfQ8cbQA3LShR92hBK5gZS1pvGUbr6tWv23ebfh7zzwhCVcRGF3Akb6 Kl71I/sDlqPJnTLRwEZZdoSp00JAbGDDEF425O1QRDWZfLT8gZbcBQJ/ouiP2wh2 yy07uMokUHz8dhvcJ44WhQx7QBG0Yjo5OxNnZRasROse9bmEpFp9uNvGgS0nnRgn PuWTnS2KBWCvfyd8eYY2PJB8rw3qmkgduBVO39XmUhCwD3kwR8wMcS1G2RXNnobc BU4RCJQmUmzWDN9w/kDY4BL7NZekiZfjb2CjYDM2Acu8BaHKGvWjlygypsyiwzYy B2pipj9S6Ad+itRFfvXZ+w1kbyp1yJmvXNIwYZC0ylyuYqpboQwKuEFKV/oUpbkX Z/CK6du7Ke8cD8IYXgkH45MRTl5kvWkd5jhzDGeX+sGnuuXzHAAdQl7+tQbM2Oey 2B0W1ddKNsbnZOhXRGh8sX6+A1j1ao6D33I+M5kj3EyURqCsRhrcqPdxBYKpJyGl y8wDdEb8Lpc= =syMf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
