1 |
Danny van Dyk wrote: |
2 |
> Am Samstag, 30. September 2006 19:02 schrieb Jakub Moc: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>> seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to |
7 |
>>> offer to the issue at hand |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> let the people who work on portage handle it |
10 |
>>> -mike |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>> Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs |
13 |
>> from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW). |
14 |
>> |
15 |
> This has little to do with why this change to the devmanual has been |
16 |
> done. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> |
19 |
>> So, hiding the inconsistency via altering the profiles doesn't change |
20 |
>> anything. Plus, the point of the bug's flame fest was that bugzilla |
21 |
>> is not a proper place to request such behaviour changes, and |
22 |
>> definitely not a reason for QA to mess with the profiles. Sticking |
23 |
>> the stuff in package.mask won't make the inconsistent behaviour |
24 |
>> vanish in any way, it will just hide it. |
25 |
>> |
26 |
> It is not a behaviour change imho. The "packages" file changed |
27 |
> its meaning subtly after introducing cascading profiles. |
28 |
> As ciaranm already pointed out: It is not meant to mask "<"-like |
29 |
> versions anymore. It's meant to |
30 |
> - Describe the system package set |
31 |
> - Define which versions are _at least_ needed for a profile. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> |
34 |
>> So, I'd kinda appreciate if concerned folks (including portage and |
35 |
>> relevant affected arches) were involved in this discussion, instead |
36 |
>> of sneaking the changes in under QA disguise. |
37 |
>> |
38 |
> Release engineering arch coordinators, which happen to be the people who |
39 |
> maintain the profiles below default-linux/ for their relevant arches, |
40 |
> have been CCed and Chris already stated that he forgot/didn't realize |
41 |
> to fix this problem for no-nptl/2.4's package.mask. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Jakub: Please reevaluate the behaviour you showed on both the bug and |
44 |
> this mailing list. I for one don't consider it anywhere near |
45 |
> appropriate. This shall be no offense, just a comment in regard that |
46 |
> you can do better. |
47 |
> |
48 |
mike, danny, |
49 |
thanks for trying, but past reference showed that he likes to talk like |
50 |
a chicken who's head has been chopped of. |
51 |
This whole discussion made most of the people forget what it was about... |
52 |
good on ya jakub... |
53 |
> Danny |
54 |
> |
55 |
|
56 |
-- |
57 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |