| 1 |
Le lundi 02 mars 2009 à 23:59 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:55:38 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > We didn't implement anything but let's just talk about what we wanted |
| 5 |
> > to see. We simply wanted overlay users to keep testing gnome 2.24 |
| 6 |
> > components that were masked or using masked packages in |
| 7 |
> > base/package.mask so we just made sure those packages had the proper |
| 8 |
> > keyword visibility. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So if you could mask 'testing'ish things that're in the overlay |
| 11 |
> (already possible), |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
well there was nothing masked in the overlay really, for 2.24, because |
| 14 |
the overlay is for testing stuff already. Let me try to rephrase and see |
| 15 |
if I can make it clearer. Although we moved some packages to the tree, |
| 16 |
some packages didn't ended up moving because they needed more testing or |
| 17 |
huge regression fixing patches but they were masked by gentoo-x86 masks |
| 18 |
because of their dependencies. Hence the mask reverting in overlay. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> and provide an easy, consistent way for users who |
| 21 |
> choose to to unmask and keyword a particular group of packages, would |
| 22 |
> that solve the problem? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
wrt to previous point, it would probably help a great deal even though |
| 25 |
I'm not sure it would completely solve this case. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> |
| 29 |
Gentoo |
Archives