Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarify wording on self-blockers
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:25:50
Message-Id: 20110426192526.2c117d7c@googlemail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarify wording on self-blockers by Ulrich Mueller
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:19:17 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> I don't like adding such "undefined" bits in cases where portage > behaviour is well-defined.
It's not well-defined, though. Different Portage versions have done very different things for it. Remember that strong vs weak blockers are a recent invention, and that in the old days Portage treated all blockers as being a bit like what strong blockers are now. -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarify wording on self-blockers Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com>