1 |
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:05:44 +0000 |
2 |
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> > Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not to use |
5 |
> > live ebuilds. I'd add a third if we had one. :) |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > But yes, if I had to pick only one I'd go with dropping keywords over |
8 |
> > package.mask. In fact it looks like I have some live ebuilds in the tree |
9 |
> > that do exactly that. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> Actually not. Users are already familiar with the -9999 concept so there |
12 |
> is no point to add extra obstacles in their way. I am trying to find out |
13 |
> corner cases where double masking makes sense. Otherwise it makes no |
14 |
> sense to me. Actually the majority of users get confused when a package |
15 |
> is double masked. Just drop by forums etc and you will see :) |
16 |
|
17 |
Again, that's the point. If you can't figure out how to get around a |
18 |
double mask then you have no business installing live ebuilds. |
19 |
|
20 |
But this is getting off topic. If you want to change the policy to recommend |
21 |
dropping keywords rather than using package.mask then I support it. |
22 |
package.mask has the disadvantage that it's too easy to accidentally unmask |
23 |
live versions with >=. And nothing stops someone from doing both if they |
24 |
want. |
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense |
29 |
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime |
30 |
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |