| 1 |
On 11/21/10 20:30, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Actually not. Users are already familiar with the -9999 concept so there |
| 3 |
>> is no point to add extra obstacles in their way. I am trying to find out |
| 4 |
>> corner cases where double masking makes sense. Otherwise it makes no |
| 5 |
>> sense to me. Actually the majority of users get confused when a package |
| 6 |
>> is double masked. Just drop by forums etc and you will see :) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Again, that's the point. If you can't figure out how to get around a |
| 9 |
> double mask then you have no business installing live ebuilds. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I know how to do it and still am grateful if I don't have to do both of |
| 12 |
them. It's not about users only. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> If you want to change the policy to recommend |
| 16 |
> dropping keywords rather than using package.mask then I support it. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
+1 for KEYWORDS="". Less effort, less likely to break the tree. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Sebastian |
Archives