Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <flameeyes@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:28:13
Message-Id: 200609301525.15965@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask by Ciaran McCreesh
On Saturday 30 September 2006 15:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> It is not a change in policy. It's a codification of existing practice.
The behaviour of portage seems to ask you to differ on this. But you also seem to lose your point. I'm discussing the change of behaviour with respect to portage, not the change to devmanual. Why am I not questioning the change to devmanual? Because the bug there is just required by Plasmaroo who act as a proxy between QA and devmanual itself, and thus not up to discuss anymore than a CVS commit. But, the behaviour change for profiles (that currently, for bug or design, acts in a different way than your "existing practice" suggest) is up to debate, as I've found a few reasons not to back up such a change, and rather stick with the current behaviour. So, again, why should we change the behaviour, other than to fullfill your request? -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE