| 1 |
On Monday 02 October 2006 14:34, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> Diego, a few people from the portage team have said that they dislike |
| 3 |
> using version masks in the packages file. I agree with them completely. |
| 4 |
I've already seen I'm in a minority, by liking the current behaviour. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Unfortunately, as with many |
| 7 |
> things in the portage world, we can't just turn off "old" functionality |
| 8 |
> over night due to the amount of system that we would break. This means |
| 9 |
> there needs to be a transition period. |
| 10 |
Of course, and that also needs to be properly documented and planned, or we'll |
| 11 |
be facing the same issues in a while again. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I tried to bring the discussion about this a) because I prefer the current |
| 14 |
behaviour b) because at least it's known what's going on. |
| 15 |
Seems like I'm the only one liking the current behaviour, so I gladly shut up, |
| 16 |
just wanted to be sure if this was the case (and having something to quote if |
| 17 |
something breaks when the behaviour is switched ;) happens too often not to |
| 18 |
consider this, too). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ |
| 22 |
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE |
Archives