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> |