| 1 |
On 2009-11-04, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> El mié, 04-11-2009 a las 15:48 -0600, Dale escribió: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>> Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> 2009/11/4 Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com>: |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>>> Is it possible to just mask and maybe keyword KDE 3? |
| 12 |
>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>> This has already been decided. We are moving it to an overlay. I |
| 14 |
>>>> can't think of a valid reason why you would not use that overlay. |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> Because I don't want one more thing to have to deal with. Gentoo |
| 17 |
>>> is enough fun already. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> But, why do you think having kde3 stuff hardmasked in main tree |
| 20 |
>> in unmaintained state will be better than having it on a external |
| 21 |
>> overlay? :-/ |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Also, think about gnome users (like me) that will not need to |
| 24 |
>> download all kde3 ebuilds on every sync :-) Yes, maybe they aren't |
| 25 |
>> so much but I still fail to see why do you think that preserving |
| 26 |
>> kde3 hardmasked is better than using an overlay |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Because I am not familiar with overlays. I have never used one and |
| 29 |
> hope to keep it that way. If it was hardmasked, just run autounmask |
| 30 |
> kde-meta:3.5 or something similar and carry on. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
"I am not familiar with autounmask. I have never used it and hope to |
| 33 |
keep it that way. If it was in an overlay, just run layman -a kde3 or |
| 34 |
something similar and carry on." |
Archives