| Summary: | Java Docs 1.5 hardmasked ~amd64 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [OLD] Docs-developer | Reporter: | Steffen Jobbagy-Felso <meh6666> |
| Component: | Other | Assignee: | Java team <java> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
| Severity: | minor | CC: | davidgrant |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | AMD64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Steffen Jobbagy-Felso
2005-02-09 13:53:00 UTC
it should be java team's work marking as WONTFIX to indicate that we're not going to unmask the docs without having the jdk1.5 unmasked. the problem is that users may get the impression that it's safe to use the jdk1.5 as the system vm and that would be bad at the moment. *** Bug 84766 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Comment #2 implies that removing a hard-mask from the docs implies the removal of the hard mask from the sun-jdk? Doesn't make any sense. The mask will still be there. The biggest advantage of removing the hard mask from the docs is that as soon as a user adds sun-jdk-1.5* to /etc/portage/package.unmask and /etc/portage/package.keywords, he is ready to emerge it. Instead, users are forced to do another iteration when they find out that the docs are also masked. Imagine you have an unstable package with 100 dependancies. You hard mask the unstable package. But do you hard mask all the dependancies just because the something which is masked depends on them? If you don't do that in this example, than don't do it in this case. It also looks really bad. When I see java-docs hard masked, it makes me think that gentoo developers are on crack. well, there is no real need for offense. as i said before, it's obviously not an technical issue with the docs itself. the problem is that the jdk1.5 isn't ready for the normal use yet, if we unmask the docs for that package users may get the impression that it can't be to bad if they unmask the package itself. your example doesn't match the situation, sorry. No offense, I was just kidding. Maybe I am the one on crack. The question is, does gentoo have a policy of hard masking packages NOT based on the merits of that package or piece of software, but based on some other piece of software which depends on it. I don't think anyone will notice that sun-jdk is unmasked like you say, and I even if they do notice I don't think they will draw any inferences from that about the stability or lack therof of sun-jdk. They will only notice if it is masked. It will seem natural that the doc package is stable but the real package isn't. It makes perfect sense. BTW, it's 2-1 now in favour of unmasking. The process should be democratic no? A compromise: add a reason for why the docs are masked in the mask file so that users see the reason when they try to emerge it. |
