| 1 |
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Francesco Riosa wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Il 23/03/2018 10:48, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto: |
| 4 |
>> Conceptually that makes no sense. sys-devel/gcc is the name of an |
| 5 |
>> upstream package, so what does it even mean to mask it in one |
| 6 |
>> repository but not in another? If it's the same package, then it |
| 7 |
>> should behave in the same way, regardless of the repository its |
| 8 |
>> ebuild it hosted in (or the package being installed, in which case |
| 9 |
>> it is no longer in an ebuild repository). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
>> If it is a different package however, then it should have a |
| 12 |
>> different name. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Sorry to say it bluntly but this make no sense at all, even changing |
| 15 |
> a USE flag make the package behave wildly differently. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Right, So you want USE dependencies, which we have. Nothing stops a |
| 18 |
package in an overlay from having additional USE flags. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Once we agree that an upstream (complex enough) package may have |
| 21 |
> different incarnations two ebuilds from different maintainers may |
| 22 |
> please differently the user. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Still, masking is the wrong way to express such preferences. If you |
| 25 |
package.mask sys-devel/gcc then you say that something is wrong with |
| 26 |
that package. Which I believe is not what you want to express here. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ulrich |
Archives