Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Harald van Dijk" <truedfx@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] new repoman check
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:17:52
Message-Id: 20060605131627.GA11717@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] new repoman check by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:51:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:41:43 +0200 Harald van Dijk <truedfx@g.o>
3 > wrote:
4 > | I then said that *you* say there can be legitimate reasons for them.
5 > | So why do *I* have to come up with examples of it?
6 >
7 > Well that's just it. I didn't say there were legitimate reasons, I just
8 > didn't commit myself to saying that there weren't.
9
10 Fair enough, but if you read "can" as "could" in my posts, they still
11 make sense.
12
13 Two reasons for CVS ebuilds that aren't hardmasked, by the way:
14
15 One: see emacs-cvs-22*; it's more reliable than the emacs-22* snapshot.
16 (Something like this is only for ~arch.)
17 Two: when a specific revision is wanted, but snapshots aren't possible
18 for legal reasons. (This could even be marked stable.)
19 --
20 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] new repoman check Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>