| 1 |
On Friday 14 March 2008, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 13 March 2008, Steve Dibb wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Because package.mask in CVS for profiles is so huge, I think it might |
| 5 |
> > > help it to get organized if we split it up a bit. |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > halcyon had a good idea for the scheme: testing, broken, removal. |
| 8 |
> > > That seems to sum up the main 3 reason that a package would be masked. |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > Right now there are 679 entries in package.mask. The reason I came up |
| 11 |
> > > with the idea was to find a way to make it easier for treecleaners to |
| 12 |
> > > quickly see which ones they were working on. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > I'd like to take the discussion to -dev but wanted to get QA's |
| 15 |
> > > thoughts first. I haven't looked into whether or not this is |
| 16 |
> > > technically feasible at all. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > i think the real solution here is allowing masking in a package |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> You want to add a metadata key and cache it you mean? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
i dont care terribly much about the logistics, just the results. as long as |
| 23 |
an ebuild can declare itself masked, it sounds good to me. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
this doesnt preclude the other ideas as there are often times where you want |
| 26 |
to have 1 global package mask piece (like large package set bumps ... so X or |
| 27 |
KDE or GNOME or ...). |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives