| 1 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:46:56 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:41:30 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Also we should allow the stuff as directory thingus (portage already |
| 7 |
> > handles it right). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> That's a seperate thing that needs EAPI control. You'll need to propose |
| 10 |
> it for EAPI 4 if you want that. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Why is that (seriously curious, not disagreeing)? Portage has supported this |
| 13 |
for quite a while now. Does the current PMS disallow it? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
What I've really wanted for a long time is different package.mask files for |
| 16 |
different types of masks. eg. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
package.mask/broken.mask (qa.mask?) |
| 19 |
package.mask/removal.mask |
| 20 |
package.mask/security.mask |
| 21 |
package.mask/testing.mask |
| 22 |
etc. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If this requires a EAPI change, let me be the first to request it for EAPI |
| 25 |
4. ;) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gcc-porting, Character is what you are in the dark. |
| 29 |
treecleaner, |
| 30 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives