Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed shift of files in the tree of non profiles files into seperate dir

[Brian Harring]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 01:32:33PM +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 01:17:50PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > Not sure about package.mask.  I thought that was part of the profile,
> > as different profiles might package.mask separately.  I know I use it
> > in /etc/profile to postpone updates.
>
> In fact the arch teams use it to mask packages that won't work on a
> particular profile/arch. If package.mask is removed from the profiles
> directory does it mean we won't be able to do that anymore ?

You're masking occurs within the profile itself, not globally.
Global masking usually is for introduction of new ebuilds that need 
testing and shouldn't be hit by normal arch testers (portage early 
release candidates for example); if you're blocking valgrind on arm 
(fex), you *should* be blocking it in profiles/default-linux/arm, not 
profiles/package.mask ;)

If it's profile specified files, relax, not targeted :).
Strictly after getting the global data out of there, and into a 
directory reflecting that data's actual role within the repository, 
and makes sense in a more flexible, non single 
$PORTDIR+$PORTDIR_OVERlAY environment.

Aside from that, see my other email re: the seperate levels of 
filtering :)
~harring