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 00:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> For what I can tell, the current behaviour has the advantage of providing a
> different masking reason for packages that are *needed to some version* for
> the profile to be complete, and for packages that are know not to work on a
isnt that the point of putting a comment above a mask ?
# this package wont work on this profile
# these versions are needed in this profile
> Example: Gentoo/FreeBSD relies on profiles masking for
> sys-freebsd/freebsd-* packages, as you should *not* use freebsd-lib 6.2 on
> the 6.1 profile, for instance; AMD64 no-multilib profiles use package.mask
> to mask packages that are known to be broken on that profile.
> In case of Gentoo/FreeBSD, it also means to have 3x entries for forcing
> versions of the packages on users.
i dont get it ... if you mask the versions in package.mask, why do you need a
packages entry at all ?
> Another reason I'd see for retain the current behaviour is that users are
> known to unmask stuff via package.unmask to try "might-be-broken" versions.
so what you're arguing is that we should retain the existing behavior because
users might try to unmask something properly ? trying to protect users from
shooting themselves in the foot by making the profile behavior more
complicated is a waste of time