Archives
Archives
| 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 |
||
| 1 | On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:19:17 +0200 |
| 2 | Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 | > I don't like adding such "undefined" bits in cases where portage |
| 4 | > behaviour is well-defined. |
| 5 | |
| 6 | It's not well-defined, though. Different Portage versions have done |
| 7 | very different things for it. Remember that strong vs weak blockers are |
| 8 | a recent invention, and that in the old days Portage treated all |
| 9 | blockers as being a bit like what strong blockers are now. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | -- |
| 12 | Ciaran McCreesh |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarify wording on self-blockers | Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com> |