On 22/07/2013 01:50, hasufell wrote:
It does not apply, because we still support it officially in our main
tree as a distribution, no matter if it's p.masked or not.
No we don't. P.masked software is *explicitly* not supported.
Anyway... if people disagree, then it doesn't make much sense to
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:26:25 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Afaiu pmasks are rather meant for
a) new, very hot versions of libraries/tools that can break your
system in more than one part
b) security masks, temporary masks and other masks we expect to remove
in the future
You can
hasufell posted on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 02:50:04 +0200 as excerpted:
[Where to reply? This seems the best spot in general. Subthread is
discussing permanent in-tree p.mask vs. overlay. The below points were
supposed to be the pros of the overlay choice.]
On 07/22/2013 01:49 AM, Diego Elio
hasufell posted on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:22:24 +0200 as excerpted:
solution: Treeclean it and maintain it in an overlay (maybe
science-overlay). That's exactly what overlays are for... experimental
stuff.
What's the pros/cons of overlay vs. in-tree-but-masked for something like
this?
On 07/22/2013 12:07 AM, Duncan wrote:
hasufell posted on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:22:24 +0200 as excerpted:
solution: Treeclean it and maintain it in an overlay (maybe
science-overlay). That's exactly what overlays are for... experimental
stuff.
What's the pros/cons of overlay vs.
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:16 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
pros:
- consistency of tree quality
- 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
- less
Dnia 2013-07-22, o godz. 00:16:31
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 07/22/2013 12:07 AM, Duncan wrote:
hasufell posted on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:22:24 +0200 as excerpted:
solution: Treeclean it and maintain it in an overlay (maybe
science-overlay). That's exactly what overlays
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2013 12:33 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-07-22, o godz. 00:16:31 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
napisał(a):
On 07/22/2013 12:07 AM, Duncan wrote:
hasufell posted on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:22:24 +0200 as
excerpted:
solution: Treeclean
On 07/22/2013 12:22 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:16 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
pros:
- consistency of tree quality
does not apply to p.mask'd packages
- less user confusion (the checksum failures alone get us a lot of bugs
every release without
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 00:35 +0200, hasufell wrote:
On 07/22/2013 12:33 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-07-22, o godz. 00:16:31 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
napisał(a):
On 07/22/2013 12:07 AM, Duncan wrote:
hasufell posted on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:22:24 +0200 as
excerpted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/22/2013 01:03 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 00:35 +0200, hasufell wrote:
On 07/22/2013 12:33 AM, Michał Górny wrote: I'd either use a
separate single-purpose overlay or add it to science-overlay.
If it's a separate
On 07/22/2013 01:20 AM, Michael Weber wrote:
On 07/22/2013 01:03 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 00:35 +0200, hasufell wrote:
On 07/22/2013 12:33 AM, Michał Górny wrote: I'd either use a
separate single-purpose overlay or add it to science-overlay.
If it's a separate
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
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2013-07-22, o godz. 00:16:31
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
- users have to run layman -a foo ...I hope they will manage (and the
masking reason will be updated to explain where to look for googleearth
On 07/22/2013 01:49 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
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.
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
We're starting to drift off topic here, but I've always felt that this
is something that could be improved on. I'm not saying that any of
this should just be thrown together, but some of the following might
be useful:
1.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/22/2013 02:34 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
2. Overlay package.* (accept one version of one package from a
particular overlay, mask all packages in an overlay that aren't
explicitly unmasked, don't apply package.(un)mask from one overlay
to
17 matches
Mail list logo
