| 1 |
Danny van Dyk wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Samstag, 30. September 2006 19:02 schrieb Jakub Moc: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to |
| 7 |
>>> offer to the issue at hand |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> let the people who work on portage handle it |
| 10 |
>>> -mike |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>> Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs |
| 13 |
>> from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW). |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
> This has little to do with why this change to the devmanual has been |
| 16 |
> done. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>> So, hiding the inconsistency via altering the profiles doesn't change |
| 20 |
>> anything. Plus, the point of the bug's flame fest was that bugzilla |
| 21 |
>> is not a proper place to request such behaviour changes, and |
| 22 |
>> definitely not a reason for QA to mess with the profiles. Sticking |
| 23 |
>> the stuff in package.mask won't make the inconsistent behaviour |
| 24 |
>> vanish in any way, it will just hide it. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
> It is not a behaviour change imho. The "packages" file changed |
| 27 |
> its meaning subtly after introducing cascading profiles. |
| 28 |
> As ciaranm already pointed out: It is not meant to mask "<"-like |
| 29 |
> versions anymore. It's meant to |
| 30 |
> - Describe the system package set |
| 31 |
> - Define which versions are _at least_ needed for a profile. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
>> So, I'd kinda appreciate if concerned folks (including portage and |
| 35 |
>> relevant affected arches) were involved in this discussion, instead |
| 36 |
>> of sneaking the changes in under QA disguise. |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
> Release engineering arch coordinators, which happen to be the people who |
| 39 |
> maintain the profiles below default-linux/ for their relevant arches, |
| 40 |
> have been CCed and Chris already stated that he forgot/didn't realize |
| 41 |
> to fix this problem for no-nptl/2.4's package.mask. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> Jakub: Please reevaluate the behaviour you showed on both the bug and |
| 44 |
> this mailing list. I for one don't consider it anywhere near |
| 45 |
> appropriate. This shall be no offense, just a comment in regard that |
| 46 |
> you can do better. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
mike, danny, |
| 49 |
thanks for trying, but past reference showed that he likes to talk like |
| 50 |
a chicken who's head has been chopped of. |
| 51 |
This whole discussion made most of the people forget what it was about... |
| 52 |
good on ya jakub... |
| 53 |
> Danny |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives