| 1 |
I think you make a stronger case for ~x86 than he does. ;) package.mask is |
| 2 |
for truly /broken/ packages. ~x86 is for |
| 3 |
development/not-ready-for-production packages. Which it sounds like this one |
| 4 |
definately is. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Michael Cummings said: |
| 7 |
> Paul, |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Not to quibble over details, but I don't believe the case is that it is |
| 10 |
> broken on x86, just that other packages that dep it can't use it yet, |
| 11 |
> awaiting upstream changes (on one end or the other). I know, details |
| 12 |
> details, but there is a difference between a broken package and a package |
| 13 |
> that's just ahead of its time. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:56:57 +0100 |
| 16 |
> Paul de Vrieze <gentoo-user@××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> In that case it should have the -x86 kewword, as it is broken |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> -- |
| 23 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives