| 1 |
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:03:55 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >> The problem with any visibility filtering is that visibility |
| 5 |
> >> depends on user configuration [1], and I don't know what changes in |
| 6 |
> >> the package manager would be necessary to make this work correctly |
| 7 |
> >> and efficiently. For example, how does portage's --autounmask-write |
| 8 |
> >> option interact with it? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > Leave solving this to Portage developers. Autounmasking is not |
| 11 |
> > something you do often on stable systems, and we have better QA to |
| 12 |
> > avoid issues that could require it. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Yeah, if I wasn't sure about Display-If-Visible, then this statement |
| 15 |
> would finally convince me that we should skip that feature, for the |
| 16 |
> time being. That something does not happen often is no excuse for not |
| 17 |
> having an implementation that can handle such rare cases. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Implementation != specification. I'm not saying the implementation |
| 20 |
shouldn't handle them. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It's also nice how you stripped the more important part of my answer. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
Michał Górny |
| 27 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives