|
Subject: [RFC] package masking too conservative? Newsgroups: gmane.linux.gentoo.devel Date: 2003-08-06 16:07:15 GMT (5 years, 9 weeks, 6 days, 9 hours and 55 minutes ago) Hi all no flame bait or anything but IMHO some packages are way too much in the masked state. I don't know the exact QA policy but it's probably do not annoy users by installing bleeding-edge software let the brave ones unmask explicitely. This is fine but I think it's applied to generically While I understand that few people would want the latest glibc, XFree snapshot or KDE form CVS, masking also applies to standalone programs which don't really affect general system stability. Many of these are programs in active development with pretty frequent releases where the developers are looking for feedback and where they generally release when they consider they improved.There are probably counter-examples too though... Ex: ebuilds for subversion , distcc, valgrind, scons are either entirely masked or generally lagging behind a couple of releases wrt the 'unstable' ebuild. The policy that 'if for an amount of time there are no bugs reported against' they are made stable is again two-edged: there's less testing of latest releases so only a smaller procent of the gentoo crowd actually provides feedback to their development. More like those RPM based distros :) Especially because many tools I find are undeservingly masked are developer oriented so there's a greater chance feedback will be sane and prompt. I'd propose to loosen this policy a bit, but then again who am I? Jani cc: please -- gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list |
|
|