| 1 |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:13:27 +0900 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| I hope I am not really hijacking the thread, but: |
| 4 |
| |
| 5 |
| maillog: 25/02/2005-10:18:12(+0100): Francesco Riosa types |
| 6 |
| > Maybe after some time it has been in the tree keyworded "-*" |
| 7 |
| > (testing, testing, testing)? |
| 8 |
| |
| 9 |
| What's the policy for "-*" v.s. "package.mask"? '-*' is pretty |
| 10 |
| annoying in my opinion. Is "-*" for really, really bad ebuilds or |
| 11 |
| something? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
-* is generally used to indicate that it's a binary package or something |
| 14 |
similar which has no chance of working on archs that it's not keyworded |
| 15 |
for. package.mask means maybe portable, but too broken for ~arch. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools) |
| 19 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 20 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives