1 |
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:59:41 -0600 |
2 |
Steve Dibb <beandog@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Hey guys, |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I have an idea I'd like to run by the QA team. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> For a user's portage preferences, we can have /etc/package.mask be a |
9 |
> file or a directory of files (package.mask/*) that will cumulatively |
10 |
> create the same effect. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Because package.mask in CVS for profiles is so huge, I think it might |
13 |
> help it to get organized if we split it up a bit. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> halcyon had a good idea for the scheme: testing, broken, removal. |
16 |
> That seems to sum up the main 3 reason that a package would be masked. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Right now there are 679 entries in package.mask. The reason I came |
19 |
> up with the idea was to find a way to make it easier for treecleaners |
20 |
> to quickly see which ones they were working on. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> I'd like to take the discussion to -dev but wanted to get QA's |
23 |
> thoughts first. I haven't looked into whether or not this is |
24 |
> technically feasible at all. |
25 |
|
26 |
Well, portage supports this since 2.1 and older versions haven't been |
27 |
supported for quite some time already, but don't know about other PMs, |
28 |
so depends if you want to risk breaking them. |
29 |
|
30 |
Marius |
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-qa@l.g.o mailing list |