Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Jochen Maes <gentoo-dev@...>
Subject: Re: OT noise (Was: Profile masking and profiles package.mask)
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 01:32:16 +0200
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> 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.
>   
mike, danny,
thanks for trying, but past reference showed that he likes to talk like
a chicken who's head has been chopped of.
This whole discussion made most of the people forget what it was about...
good on ya jakub...
> Danny
>   

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


References:
Profile masking and profiles package.mask
-- Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
Re: OT noise (Was: Profile masking and profiles package.mask)
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: OT noise (Was: Profile masking and profiles package.mask)
-- Jakub Moc
Re: OT noise (Was: Profile masking and profiles package.mask)
-- Danny van Dyk
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: OT noise (Was: Profile masking and profiles package.mask)
Next by thread:
Re: OT noise (Was: Profile masking and profiles package.mask)
Previous by date:
Re: [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN
Next by date:
Re: Profile masking and profiles package.mask


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.