Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <flameeyes@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:12:17
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask by Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 30 September 2006 19:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> isnt that the point of putting a comment above a mask ? > # this package wont work on this profile > bar/foo
Indeed, but the problem is that the masks are all normalised in one big mask. Which means that users might want to unmask certain versions found in the top-level profile.mask, and also unmask some of the packages masked in a profile.
> fbsd/packages:sys-freebsd/freebsd-mk-defs > fbsd/package.mask:<nothing> > fbsd/6.1/packages:<nothing> > fbsd/6.1/package.mask:>=sys-freebsd/freebsd-mk-defs-6.2 > fbsd/6.2/packages:<nothing> > fbsd/6.2/package.mask:<nothing>
Actually, you need to mask < versions, too ...
> so what you're arguing is that we should retain the existing behavior > because users might try to unmask something properly ? trying to protect > users from shooting themselves in the foot by making the profile behavior > more complicated is a waste of time
Uh, it's not "making the profile behaviour more complicated", it's "retaining the current behaviour of profiles". But seems I'm in minority on this. Still, if we're going to change this behaviour, it's the case to do it properly, by also updating the behaviour of portage itself, and document this properly (as in, give a reasoning for this change of behaviour). Note to Danny: releng controls default-linux, okay, but there are other profiles than those, hardened and Gentoo/Alt. The decision should have been taken by all the three of us, not unilaterally. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>