| 1 |
sorry to poke a hole in this argument : |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
and how many multiple points of failure does this introduce? suddenly |
| 4 |
you have 13 package.mask to edit to mask -one- package, instead of 1 |
| 5 |
file... |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Currently we (drobbins really) are looking at a KEYWORDS mask, giving |
| 8 |
the possibility to tag an ebuild as "broken" or "testing" or "ppc" |
| 9 |
inside the ebuild, thus moving the mask back one level to the actual |
| 10 |
ebuilds, as well as fine-tuning it further, then a user can have their |
| 11 |
own match of KEYWORDS (Ie, I want x86 and testing things, not broken) |
| 12 |
and the mask gets applied in a more finegrained way. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
//Spider |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
begin quote |
| 17 |
On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 01:40:53 -0700 |
| 18 |
Robert Coie <rac@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Is there a good reason for handling package.mask differently from the |
| 22 |
> various profiles in /usr/portage/profiles? IOW, would it be a problem |
| 23 |
> to have portage look at /etc/package.mask (for example), which would |
| 24 |
> be a symlink to one of several choices in /usr/portage/profiles? This |
| 25 |
> would seem to facilitate separate package masks for different |
| 26 |
> architectures, and would allow machines of different architectures to |
| 27 |
> more easily share a locally mirrored portage tree. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> -- |
| 30 |
> Robert Coie <rac@××××××××××.jp> |
| 31 |
> Implementor, Apropos Ltd. |
| 32 |
> _______________________________________________ |
| 33 |
> gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 34 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o |
| 35 |
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
begin .signature |
| 40 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 41 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 42 |
end |
Archives