Am Samstag, 30. September 2006 19:02 schrieb Jakub Moc:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to
> > offer to the issue at hand
> >
> > let the people who work on portage handle it
> > -mike
>
> Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs
> from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW).
This has little to do with why this change to the devmanual has been 
done.

> So, hiding the inconsistency via altering the profiles doesn't change
> anything. Plus, the point of the bug's flame fest was that bugzilla
> is not a proper place to request such behaviour changes, and
> definitely not a reason for QA to mess with the profiles. Sticking
> the stuff in package.mask won't make the inconsistent behaviour
> vanish in any way, it will just hide it.
It is not a behaviour change imho. The "packages" file changed
its meaning subtly after introducing cascading profiles.
As ciaranm already pointed out: It is not meant to mask "<"-like 
versions anymore. It's meant to
- Describe the system package set
- Define which versions are _at least_ needed for a profile.

> So, I'd kinda appreciate if concerned folks (including portage and
> relevant affected arches) were involved in this discussion, instead
> of sneaking the changes in under QA disguise.
Release engineering arch coordinators, which happen to be the people who
maintain the profiles below default-linux/ for their relevant arches, 
have been CCed and Chris already stated that he forgot/didn't realize
to fix this problem for no-nptl/2.4's package.mask.

Jakub: Please reevaluate the behaviour you showed on both the bug and 
this mailing list. I for one don't consider it anywhere near 
appropriate. This shall be no offense, just a comment in regard that 
you can do better.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list