| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 12:57:08PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:56:16 +0200 Harald van Dijk <truedfx@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | The devmanual states that they should not "generally" be added to the |
| 5 |
> | tree softmasked or unmasked. It does not state that they should never |
| 6 |
> | be added as such at all. Or, in other words, there can be exceptions. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It's not a hard ban because when I wrote it I was thinking that maybe |
| 9 |
> some day someone would come up with a legitimate reason for it. You've |
| 10 |
> yet to do that, so you don't get to take the exception clause. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The proposal was to change it to a hard ban. You say that there could |
| 13 |
be legitimate reasons for (un)stable CVS ebuilds. What I'm saying is |
| 14 |
that they're valid from a portage POV even without reasons, that they're |
| 15 |
currently used, and that the current stable CVS ebuilds are indeed a bad |
| 16 |
idea. So far, I don't think you disagree, but if you do, please explain. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I then said that *you* say there can be legitimate reasons for them. So |
| 19 |
why do *I* have to come up with examples of it? |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives