| 1 |
On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote: |
| 2 |
> W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze: |
| 3 |
>> It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64 because |
| 4 |
>> it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it would be |
| 5 |
>> beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for arches that |
| 6 |
>> don't affect them at all. |
| 7 |
>> [...] |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I don't know what gave you the idea that ppc* has anything to do with |
| 10 |
> masking/unmasking of KDE-4.6. Just 2 facts: |
| 11 |
> 1) you can unmask anything by using /etc/portage/package.unmask, |
| 12 |
> therefore nothing can ever hold *you* back |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This is about all users in general. Not just me :-) If putting stuff |
| 15 |
in /etc/portage/package.unmask should be considered the recommended |
| 16 |
solution for this, then we wouldn't need a masking system in the first |
| 17 |
place. When something is hard-masked, it tells the user "we're not |
| 18 |
considering it safe or working yet." |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> 2) arches already have independent package.mask files, see |
| 22 |
> ${PORTDIR}/profiles/arch/powerpc/package.mask for an example. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
It seems they aren't used though. I mainly posted this because of the |
| 25 |
discussion on this page: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
http://blog.tampakrap.gr/kde-sc-4-6-0-in-gentoo |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
It seems devs have can't modify arch/powerpc/package.mask on their own? |
| 30 |
If not, this looks like a problem, delaying packages for all arches. |
Archives