| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:00:03PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:11:53 +0000 |
| 3 |
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Users interpret this as a 'double masking' which in fact it is since |
| 6 |
> > they need to touch two files before they are able to use the package. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not to use |
| 9 |
> live ebuilds. I'd add a third if we had one. :) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> But yes, if I had to pick only one I'd go with dropping keywords over |
| 12 |
> package.mask. In fact it looks like I have some live ebuilds in the tree |
| 13 |
> that do exactly that. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
Actually not. Users are already familiar with the -9999 concept so there |
| 16 |
is no point to add extra obstacles in their way. I am trying to find out |
| 17 |
corner cases where double masking makes sense. Otherwise it makes no |
| 18 |
sense to me. Actually the majority of users get confused when a package |
| 19 |
is double masked. Just drop by forums etc and you will see :) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
| 23 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 24 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |
| 25 |
Key ID: 441AC410 |
| 26 |
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410 |
Archives