1 |
The dlang repository offers a gcc ebuild that adds the patchset to build |
2 |
the gdc. It's behind a USE-Flag. Still it is exactly the same as |
3 |
sys-devel/gcc::gentoo besides the additional feature. |
4 |
But I don't think the dlang repo should mask gcc::gentoo. |
5 |
|
6 |
2018-03-23 12:18 GMT+02:00 Francesco Riosa <vivo75@×××××.com>: |
7 |
|
8 |
> |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Il 23/03/2018 10:48, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto: |
11 |
> >>>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018, Geaaru wrote: |
12 |
> >> for both portage and your fork I think that could be interesting add |
13 |
> >> an extension to PMS for define inside profiles or targets masking of |
14 |
> >> packages of a particular repslository. Currently PMS doesn't permit |
15 |
> >> this but have this feature could be help users to define our |
16 |
> >> profiles under overlays. |
17 |
> >> Something like this: |
18 |
> >> sys-devel/gcc::gentoo |
19 |
> > Conceptually that makes no sense. sys-devel/gcc is the name of an |
20 |
> > upstream package, so what does it even mean to mask it in one |
21 |
> > repository but not in another? If it's the same package, then it |
22 |
> > should behave in the same way, regardless of the repository its ebuild |
23 |
> > it hosted in (or the package being installed, in which case it is no |
24 |
> > longer in an ebuild repository). |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > If it is a different package however, then it should have a different |
27 |
> > name. |
28 |
> Sorry to say it bluntly but this make no sense at all, even changing a |
29 |
> USE flag make the package behave wildly differently. |
30 |
> Once we agree that an upstream (complex enough) package may have |
31 |
> different incarnations two ebuilds from different maintainers may please |
32 |
> differently the user. |
33 |
> I'm not sure this choice belong to profiles but not because same |
34 |
> upstream correspond to same files on filesystem. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> > Ulrich |
38 |
> |
39 |
> |
40 |
> |