| 1 |
Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
> Who said a package gets masked before it gets removed? There is no such |
| 3 |
> requirement in the ebuild policy. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Come on. Is this a 'policy doesn't say I have to be sane' war? It's absolutely |
| 6 |
reasonable to p.mask a package that is pending for removal. That way you give |
| 7 |
the users a timeframe which they can search for alternative tools in. I don't |
| 8 |
know whether policy does state this or not, I don't care. It's not like you |
| 9 |
would get any bugs for a masked package. It's not like you would gain a lot of |
| 10 |
space because you freed up 3 ebuilds and a few digests. It's not like you would |
| 11 |
gain anything from removing it immediately. But those who use the package do |
| 12 |
gain a lot from you giving them a hint to search for alternatives. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
-- |
| 15 |
Kind Regards, |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Simon Stelling |
| 18 |
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives