| 1 |
2008/5/30 David Leverton <levertond@××××××××××.com>: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Friday 30 May 2008 22:10:00 Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Freitag, 30. Mai 2008, David Leverton wrote: |
| 5 |
> > oh really? |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I don't think so. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> You also "think" that |
| 10 |
> * it's Paludis's fault that the maintainers of some of the overlays I use |
| 11 |
> chose to commit eclasses with the same names as those in the tree |
| 12 |
> * package.mask syntax, that I explicitly stated was supported by Portage |
| 13 |
> when |
| 14 |
> I first mentioned it, is invalid |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
is portage would admit commiting of changes to its eclasses that would be |
| 18 |
avoided. if someone needs a big eclass like the kde4-base for example, but |
| 19 |
would need to change a little thing in it what should he do?! this |
| 20 |
overriding is good and is done in much places in programming and also in |
| 21 |
this case should not be a bother since would just be read for the specific |
| 22 |
overlay that ovverrides it. but if portage is so dumb to not be able to |
| 23 |
understand that maybe portage mantainers should do it. portage also has the |
| 24 |
faculty of mantaining overlays and thus this behavior should be normal. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
dott. ing. beso |
Archives