1 |
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:48:37 +0200 |
2 |
Luis Ressel <aranea@×××××.de> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> I think I'd rather go with the original workflow. Okay, perhaps |
5 |
> package.masking -9999 is a bit uncommon and clutters package.mask, but |
6 |
> it's not all *that* bad and it eases the workflow. |
7 |
|
8 |
Depends on whose workflow you are referring to; it doesn't affect the |
9 |
maintainer, but the clutter can be a pain if you attempt to keep the |
10 |
p.mask size low. Having package.mask as a directory would be a solution |
11 |
to this; however, there's not much other need for it to be a directory. |
12 |
|
13 |
-- |
14 |
With kind regards, |
15 |
|
16 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
17 |
Gentoo Developer |
18 |
|
19 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
20 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
21 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |