1 |
On Sunday 02 April 2006 17:23, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
2 |
> This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at |
3 |
> package.mask. Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is |
4 |
> void. And even if - four weeks are a too long, imho. |
5 |
|
6 |
As Andrej Kacian already noted, there are quite some people that don't sync |
7 |
every week. My general feeling is that most gentoo devs are far too fast in |
8 |
their decision/actions. As I already stated elsewhere in this thread, I |
9 |
generally only sync when I need to upgrade for feature/bug-/security-fixes |
10 |
and I don't see why that would be a bad idea. That way I get the benefits of |
11 |
gentoo but don't spend all day merging stuff that will have a new version two |
12 |
hours later :) |
13 |
|
14 |
Regarding your argument that you have to be actively looking at p.mask, that |
15 |
is not entirely true because a verbose world/system merge will tell you about |
16 |
a masked package, although I do think that this is not enough and even the |
17 |
message in verbose mode is not really noticeable. But just because portage |
18 |
does not really alert the user anyway, does not mean that masking first is |
19 |
bad, does it? I think the reporting of missing/masked packages in portage has |
20 |
to be improved, instead of removing the masking process :) |
21 |
|
22 |
Just my 0.02EUR. |
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
Alex |
26 |
-- |
27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |