On Saturday 17 September 2005 05:59 pm, Alec Warner wrote: > 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.
that does sound like a pretty quick and clean solution ... the only problem i would have with it is that when we move from testing to normal portage tree, we lose cvs history ... and we'd have to merge ChangeLogs ... -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
