On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:10:32PM +0000, Duncan wrote: > Ryan Hill posted on Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:30:15 -0600 as excerpted: > > > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:05:44 +0000 > > Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> > Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not > >> > to use live ebuilds. I'd add a third if we had one. :) > >> > > >> Actually not. Users are already familiar with the -9999 concept so > >> there is no point to add extra obstacles in their way. I am trying to > >> find out corner cases where double masking makes sense. Otherwise it > >> makes no sense to me. Actually the majority of users get confused when > >> a package is double masked. Just drop by forums etc and you will see :) > > > > Again, that's the point. If you can't figure out how to get around a > > double mask then you have no business installing live ebuilds. > > As a user who regularly uses certain live ebuilds (and contrasting SP), > strongly agreed. If the double-masking is confusing them, they're better > off sticking with standard versioned ebuilds as they're demonstrably not > up to dealing with other difficulties which might arise with a live > package and Gentoo doesn't need the extra bug noise. Double-masking for > live ebuilds in the main tree thus seems to me to be the best policy. >
I thought I'd chip in as well. I wouldn't consider myself a poweruser, but more and more often I find myself preferring to use the live ebuilds. When I first attempted at using live ebuilds I knew next to nothing and didn't quite understand the double masking. Some time later I know use a fair few live ebuilds. Had I understood the masking (more so than being able to remove it) back then, then I would have used them. But I reckon it's a good idea to have the double masking and confuse those that don't know enough. I'd say keep the double masking. Better that than the bugs it would probably produce, and the breakage it could produce. -- Zeerak Waseem
