Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] package.mask or package.mask.d
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:52:56
Message-Id: 20090822205254.GA8975@linux1
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 08:39:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
5 > We also need to consider whether people even want it done exactly the
6 > way Portage does it now. Some developers have expressed a preference
7 > for a package.mask.d of some kind instead.
8
9 I saw that, and I'm not sure why they suggested changing the directory
10 from package.mask to package.mask.d, since all you would need to do is
11 rename the file package.mask to something like package.mask/oldmasks and
12 the masks in it would be preserved until you put them in different files
13 in the package.mask directory and removed them from oldmasks, ultimately
14 deleting oldmasks.
15
16
17 - --
18 William Hubbs
19 gentoo accessibility team lead
20 williamh@g.o
21 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
22 Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
23
24 iEYEARECAAYFAkqQWqYACgkQblQW9DDEZTiKxQCfejjxnM/8EmhXglK6bpnzCxIG
25 emcAn3CFgDOJ27wkNWo46DZh2p/N5J74
26 =v+g+
27 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: package.mask or package.mask.d Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>