| 1 |
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 16:57:34 +1000 |
| 2 |
Jonathan Kelly <j0n@×××××××.au> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > It would make sense (to me anyway) if the local ebuilds in |
| 5 |
> > $PORTDIR_OVERLAY were *NOT* checked against packages.mask, that way us |
| 6 |
.. |
| 7 |
> I think that is a logical and great idea. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I disgree. I think it's a hack that doesn't really solve the problem at |
| 10 |
hand, which is "supplementary" package masking, using the package |
| 11 |
mask in /usr/portage as the 'canonical' package mask and then using |
| 12 |
a second package mask to over ride that. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
PORTDIR_OVERLAY is there for just one reason, to provide *local* |
| 15 |
ebuilds. If the behavior of ebuilds is different here, that is an |
| 16 |
inferred behavior and not a logical one. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
package masking and ebuilds are separate, keep their interfaces |
| 19 |
separate. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Jon Nelson <jnelson@×××××××.net> |
| 25 |
C and Python Code Gardener |
Archives