On 06/30/2014 11:27, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:37:11 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> You're basically asking for the practice of hard-masks for testing to >> be banned. > > My original point in the other thread was that "masked for testing" is > not a valid reason. A reference to an outstanding issue, bug report, > discussion or other resources would help users determine whether it's > safe for them to unmask an ebuild locally. "Masked for testing" offers > no guidance at all and is nothing more than a lazy substitute for real > content.
I would agree to a point. In the case of some toolchain related packages, like gcc and binutils, "masked for testing" keeps potentially dangerous system updates from propagating out to a majority of users. However, those users and developers who are quite avid about being on the forefront of the latest and greatest already know how to unmask such packages and test them out. So a mask on "=sys-devel/gcc-4.9.0" with the reason of "Masked for testing" makes perfect sense, especially since this version of gcc enables strong stack-protection. -- Joshua Kinard Gentoo/MIPS ku...@gentoo.org 4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28 "The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." --Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic
