| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <azarah@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the |
| 5 |
> | summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should |
| 6 |
> | cover those things that sorda work on the arch, but you rather want |
| 7 |
> | developers or experienced users that can patch bugs to look at it ... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Those go in per-profile package.masks. It's more flexible than a |
| 10 |
> keyword. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
Speaking of flexabilty, are there tools out there to perform look-ups |
| 13 |
into p.masks to figure out why things are masked? There seems to be a |
| 14 |
standard format to the file although the part at the beginning kind of |
| 15 |
throws off a simpler regex. Flexability is good sure, but I would think |
| 16 |
a developer needs to easily determine why something is pmasked ( broken, |
| 17 |
"testing", security, removal, etc... ) and keywords do that a lot faster |
| 18 |
than searching through a pmask file. If the searching is sped up via a |
| 19 |
better format and a searching tool then all the better, yes? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The other thing being a keyword is right in the ebuild where pmask |
| 22 |
status is in package.mask. I am not for putting pmask status in the |
| 23 |
ebuild though, as that is not necessary, once again a tool problem :/ |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives