| 1 |
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 01:18:07 -0500 Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| Even if you modify the profile to "mask" gcc-3.3.x, it won't force |
| 4 |
| people to unmerge their existing gcc-3.3.x since it's slotted and |
| 5 |
| they would already have gcc-3.4.x emerged, correct? And if we can't |
| 6 |
| force them to unmerge it, we can't force them to switch which gcc |
| 7 |
| version is active. Masking in the profile would have no effect if |
| 8 |
| this is true. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Yeah. It's more of a tradition thing than a strict technological |
| 11 |
enforcement. In the past we've always considered any GCC allowed by the |
| 12 |
profile (that is to say, not masked or out of the packages range) to be |
| 13 |
valid. Refusing to take bugs from people who're using a GCC permitted |
| 14 |
by the profile is rather unfair... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 18 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives