| 1 |
On Saturday 30 September 2006 04:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1]. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Posted on the bug before noticing there was a -dev thread. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
""" |
| 7 |
Just about everybody has the wrong idea here. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
1) Specifying <sys-libs/glibc-2.4 in packages *does* mask >=sys-libs/glibc-2.4 |
| 10 |
and thus a corresponding entry in package.mask |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
2) What should be done is to specify >=sys-libs/glibc-2.4 and leave masking |
| 13 |
out altogether for packages |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The reason that package.mask was added to profiles was so that masking of |
| 16 |
atoms in packages could be killed off and it could become just a list of |
| 17 |
required packages. |
| 18 |
""" |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Like Marius said, using packages to both define what's required of "system" |
| 21 |
and for masking packages is bad design. That and the hope of eventually being |
| 22 |
able to kill off profiles/package.mask are the only reasons package.mask was |
| 23 |
introduced into profiles. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
<snip stuff that Mike responded to correctly> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> I cannot find myself any reason for such a behaviour change, but I'm open |
| 28 |
> to be proven wrong. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The original reason for specifying masking in both packages and package.mask |
| 31 |
was that there were portage versions that didn't look at package.mask. That |
| 32 |
was a long time ago though, so masking should really be dropped from packages |
| 33 |
altogether at this late stage. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
However, masking in packages only is still supported. If there is a reason |
| 36 |
that the plans for killing off that support should be suspended, that's also |
| 37 |
viable. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives