| 1 |
Am Mittwoch, den 12.08.2009, 23:55 -0600 schrieb Ryan Hill: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:46:56 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:41:30 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > Also we should allow the stuff as directory thingus (portage already |
| 8 |
> > > handles it right). |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > That's a seperate thing that needs EAPI control. You'll need to propose |
| 11 |
> > it for EAPI 4 if you want that. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Why is that (seriously curious, not disagreeing)? Portage has supported this |
| 14 |
> for quite a while now. Does the current PMS disallow it? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> What I've really wanted for a long time is different package.mask files for |
| 17 |
> different types of masks. eg. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> package.mask/broken.mask (qa.mask?) |
| 20 |
> package.mask/removal.mask |
| 21 |
> package.mask/security.mask |
| 22 |
> package.mask/testing.mask |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
To avoid collision with the current package.mask I'd prefer |
| 25 |
package.mask.d/ for the directory. Also makes the transition easy since |
| 26 |
we can generate package.mask out of the files in package.mask.d/. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Tiziano Müller |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 31 |
Areas of responsibility: |
| 32 |
Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor |
| 33 |
E-Mail : dev-zero@g.o |
| 34 |
GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30 |
Archives