[gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: Portage should not mask packages globally, but only for some arches

[Christian Faulhammer]

Hi,

Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.de>:
> On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> > W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:
> >> It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64
> >> because it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords.  I believe it
> >> would be beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for
> >> arches that don't affect them at all.
> >>  [...]
> >
> > I don't know what gave you the idea that ppc* has anything to do
> > with masking/unmasking of KDE-4.6. Just 2 facts:
> >   1) you can unmask anything by using /etc/portage/package.unmask,
> > therefore nothing can ever hold *you* back
>
> This is about all users in general.  Not just me :-)  If putting
> stuff in /etc/portage/package.unmask should be considered the
> recommended solution for this, then we wouldn't need a masking system
> in the first place.  When something is hard-masked, it tells the user
> "we're not considering it safe or working yet."
>
>
> >   2) arches already have independent package.mask files, see
> > ${PORTDIR}/profiles/arch/powerpc/package.mask for an example.
>
> It seems they aren't used though.  I mainly posted this because of
> the discussion on this page:
>
>    http://blog.tampakrap.gr/kde-sc-4-6-0-in-gentoo
>
> It seems devs have can't modify arch/powerpc/package.mask on their
> own? If not, this looks like a problem, delaying packages for all
> arches.

 Don't be so impatient...Debian users wait two years for a new major
version of KDE.  This is also a general hard mask for wider testing, it
usually gets moved further down the line to individual profiles.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>