List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Saturday 30 September 2006 04:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 .
Posted on the bug before noticing there was a -dev thread.
Just about everybody has the wrong idea here.
1) Specifying <sys-libs/glibc-2.4 in packages *does* mask >=sys-libs/glibc-2.4
and thus a corresponding entry in package.mask
2) What should be done is to specify >=sys-libs/glibc-2.4 and leave masking
out altogether for packages
The reason that package.mask was added to profiles was so that masking of
atoms in packages could be killed off and it could become just a list of
Like Marius said, using packages to both define what's required of "system"
and for masking packages is bad design. That and the hope of eventually being
able to kill off profiles/package.mask are the only reasons package.mask was
introduced into profiles.
<snip stuff that Mike responded to correctly>
> I cannot find myself any reason for such a behaviour change, but I'm open
> to be proven wrong.
The original reason for specifying masking in both packages and package.mask
was that there were portage versions that didn't look at package.mask. That
was a long time ago though, so masking should really be dropped from packages
altogether at this late stage.
However, masking in packages only is still supported. If there is a reason
that the plans for killing off that support should be suspended, that's also
email@example.com mailing list