| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 13.06 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha |
| 4 |
> scritto: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > If anyone considers masking glibc 2.13 for now: please take my vote. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It should have been masked _beforehand_, masking it now is going to |
| 9 |
> cause more trouble. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Given this situation; it is desirable for future Portage/EAPI to be |
| 13 |
able to create a deptree depending on whether an atom is already |
| 14 |
installed or not? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
With this functionality it is possible to "mask" a |
| 17 |
package-without-downgrade-path again for systems that haven't the new |
| 18 |
atom installed yet. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It should be used as little as possible of course, but for situations |
| 21 |
like this the damage can be limited to as few systems as possible. |
Archives