Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] OT noise (Was: Profile masking and profiles package.mask)
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:36:27
Message-Id: 200609301944.08656.kugelfang@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] OT noise (Was: Profile masking and profiles package.mask) by Jakub Moc
1 Am Samstag, 30. September 2006 19:02 schrieb Jakub Moc:
2 > Mike Frysinger wrote:
3 > > seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to
4 > > offer to the issue at hand
5 > >
6 > > let the people who work on portage handle it
7 > > -mike
8 >
9 > Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs
10 > from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW).
11 This has little to do with why this change to the devmanual has been
12 done.
13
14 > So, hiding the inconsistency via altering the profiles doesn't change
15 > anything. Plus, the point of the bug's flame fest was that bugzilla
16 > is not a proper place to request such behaviour changes, and
17 > definitely not a reason for QA to mess with the profiles. Sticking
18 > the stuff in package.mask won't make the inconsistent behaviour
19 > vanish in any way, it will just hide it.
20 It is not a behaviour change imho. The "packages" file changed
21 its meaning subtly after introducing cascading profiles.
22 As ciaranm already pointed out: It is not meant to mask "<"-like
23 versions anymore. It's meant to
24 - Describe the system package set
25 - Define which versions are _at least_ needed for a profile.
26
27 > So, I'd kinda appreciate if concerned folks (including portage and
28 > relevant affected arches) were involved in this discussion, instead
29 > of sneaking the changes in under QA disguise.
30 Release engineering arch coordinators, which happen to be the people who
31 maintain the profiles below default-linux/ for their relevant arches,
32 have been CCed and Chris already stated that he forgot/didn't realize
33 to fix this problem for no-nptl/2.4's package.mask.
34
35 Jakub: Please reevaluate the behaviour you showed on both the bug and
36 this mailing list. I for one don't consider it anywhere near
37 appropriate. This shall be no offense, just a comment in regard that
38 you can do better.
39
40 Danny
41 --
42 Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o>
43 Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
44 --
45 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] OT noise (Was: Profile masking and profiles package.mask) Jochen Maes <gentoo-dev@××××.be>