| 1 |
On Saturday 30 September 2006 00:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> For what I can tell, the current behaviour has the advantage of providing a |
| 3 |
> different masking reason for packages that are *needed to some version* for |
| 4 |
> the profile to be complete, and for packages that are know not to work on a |
| 5 |
> profile. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
isnt that the point of putting a comment above a mask ? |
| 8 |
# this package wont work on this profile |
| 9 |
bar/foo |
| 10 |
# these versions are needed in this profile |
| 11 |
=cat/meow-1* |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Example: Gentoo/FreeBSD relies on profiles masking for |
| 14 |
> sys-freebsd/freebsd-* packages, as you should *not* use freebsd-lib 6.2 on |
| 15 |
> the 6.1 profile, for instance; AMD64 no-multilib profiles use package.mask |
| 16 |
> to mask packages that are known to be broken on that profile. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> In case of Gentoo/FreeBSD, it also means to have 3x entries for forcing |
| 19 |
> versions of the packages on users. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
i dont get it ... if you mask the versions in package.mask, why do you need a |
| 22 |
packages entry at all ? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
fbsd/packages:sys-freebsd/freebsd-mk-defs |
| 25 |
fbsd/package.mask:<nothing> |
| 26 |
fbsd/6.1/packages:<nothing> |
| 27 |
fbsd/6.1/package.mask:>=sys-freebsd/freebsd-mk-defs-6.2 |
| 28 |
fbsd/6.2/packages:<nothing> |
| 29 |
fbsd/6.2/package.mask:<nothing> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> Another reason I'd see for retain the current behaviour is that users are |
| 32 |
> known to unmask stuff via package.unmask to try "might-be-broken" versions. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
so what you're arguing is that we should retain the existing behavior because |
| 35 |
users might try to unmask something properly ? trying to protect users from |
| 36 |
shooting themselves in the foot by making the profile behavior more |
| 37 |
complicated is a waste of time |
| 38 |
-mike |
Archives