1 |
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:40:07 +0200 |
2 |
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <flameeyes@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1]. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> The bug points to a behaviour change in handling of the profiles |
7 |
> file, that, in my opinion at least, needs to be discussed, as there |
8 |
> are profiles relying on the old behaviour (Gentoo/FreeBSD's to state |
9 |
> some). |
10 |
> |
11 |
> For what I can tell, the current behaviour has the advantage of |
12 |
> providing a different masking reason for packages that are *needed to |
13 |
> some version* for the profile to be complete, and for packages that |
14 |
> are know not to work on a profile. |
15 |
|
16 |
[snip] |
17 |
|
18 |
Personally I dislike the masking aspect of the packages file, as it's |
19 |
mostly redundant, problematic in some cases (e.g. requring a |
20 |
specific gcc versions masks all older gcc versions implicitly) and I |
21 |
think having a single file to serve two purposes (set "system" and |
22 |
masking packages) is crappy. Also overriding profile masks (yes, |
23 |
this is valid sometimes) isn't intuitive either as there is no |
24 |
"unmask" feature. This isn't connected to the mentioned bug at all btw. |
25 |
|
26 |
However I understand your reasoning about unmasking things with |
27 |
package.unmask, the question is how common that use case would be? |
28 |
|
29 |
Marius |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |