1 |
Le lundi 02 mars 2009 à 16:48 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : |
2 |
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:41:23 +0200 |
3 |
> Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > So here the reverting of a masking in gentoo-x86 is quite |
5 |
> intentional and currently desired. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> This is fundamentally broken as a concept. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Adding an overlay should not have any impact upon other repositories. |
10 |
> It should be possible for a user to add an overlay, and make limited |
11 |
> use of that repository, without having to worry that the mere act of |
12 |
> adding that overlay will make massive changes to what's visible in |
13 |
> other repositories. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Overlays shouldn't be altering the visibility of things outside of |
16 |
> that overlay without explicit user action. |
17 |
|
18 |
well that's unfortunate that it doesn't fit that view but that's still |
19 |
what was desired. See next block for details. |
20 |
|
21 |
> The way forward here is to identify what you're trying to achieve, |
22 |
> whilst ignoring how things are currently defined or what is or is not |
23 |
> possible. Then we can look at that and work out whether it can be |
24 |
> mapped to an existing solution or some easily-implementable new |
25 |
> solution. Starting with implementation is the wrong approach. |
26 |
|
27 |
We didn't implement anything but let's just talk about what we wanted to |
28 |
see. We simply wanted overlay users to keep testing gnome 2.24 |
29 |
components that were masked or using masked packages in |
30 |
base/package.mask so we just made sure those packages had the proper |
31 |
keyword visibility. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> |
35 |
Gentoo |