1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Saturday 30 September 2006 13:02, Jakub Moc wrote: |
3 |
>> Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs |
4 |
>> from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW). |
5 |
> |
6 |
> the technical point is what is the expected behavior of the packages file ... |
7 |
> seems silly to duplicate masking across two different files |
8 |
> |
9 |
> what have you offered to this discussion ? nothing: so sit back and let the |
10 |
> people who actually work on this stuff handle it |
11 |
> -mike |
12 |
|
13 |
It's not duplicating, exactly the opposite. Sticking the stuff into |
14 |
per-profile package.mask is duplicating the information, because portage |
15 |
handles it just fine without any such duplication (that's the whole |
16 |
point of Flameeyes' original mail). |
17 |
|
18 |
Now if you want to change this, nothing wrong with that except when |
19 |
someone goes moaning to bugzilla and QA starts messing with the profiles |
20 |
without any discussion. This is not a QA issue. |
21 |
|
22 |
If you want to change this behaviour, go provide some reason why it |
23 |
should be done and either you persuade the folks involved or not. In |
24 |
addition, those two kinds of masking (masked by profile vs. masked by |
25 |
package.mask) are not duplicating each other, they behave quite differently. |
26 |
|
27 |
For the rest, sorry but replies as "stop wasting everyone's time" or |
28 |
"sit back and let people who actually work do it" as not much polite and |
29 |
don't offer anything to this discussion either. |
30 |
|
31 |
Thanks. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Best regards, |
35 |
|
36 |
Jakub Moc |
37 |
mailto:jakub@g.o |
38 |
GPG signature: |
39 |
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E |
40 |
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E |
41 |
|
42 |
... still no signature ;) |