| 1 |
On Saturday 30 September 2006 19:39, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> isnt that the point of putting a comment above a mask ? |
| 3 |
> # this package wont work on this profile |
| 4 |
> bar/foo |
| 5 |
Indeed, but the problem is that the masks are all normalised in one big mask. |
| 6 |
Which means that users might want to unmask certain versions found in the |
| 7 |
top-level profile.mask, and also unmask some of the packages masked in a |
| 8 |
profile. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> fbsd/packages:sys-freebsd/freebsd-mk-defs |
| 11 |
> fbsd/package.mask:<nothing> |
| 12 |
> fbsd/6.1/packages:<nothing> |
| 13 |
> fbsd/6.1/package.mask:>=sys-freebsd/freebsd-mk-defs-6.2 |
| 14 |
> fbsd/6.2/packages:<nothing> |
| 15 |
> fbsd/6.2/package.mask:<nothing> |
| 16 |
Actually, you need to mask < versions, too ... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> so what you're arguing is that we should retain the existing behavior |
| 19 |
> because users might try to unmask something properly ? trying to protect |
| 20 |
> users from shooting themselves in the foot by making the profile behavior |
| 21 |
> more complicated is a waste of time |
| 22 |
Uh, it's not "making the profile behaviour more complicated", it's "retaining |
| 23 |
the current behaviour of profiles". |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
But seems I'm in minority on this. |
| 26 |
Still, if we're going to change this behaviour, it's the case to do it |
| 27 |
properly, by also updating the behaviour of portage itself, and document this |
| 28 |
properly (as in, give a reasoning for this change of behaviour). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Note to Danny: releng controls default-linux, okay, but there are other |
| 31 |
profiles than those, hardened and Gentoo/Alt. The decision should have been |
| 32 |
taken by all the three of us, not unilaterally. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ |
| 36 |
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE |
Archives