| 1 |
Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, David Leverton wrote: |
| 3 |
>> One last thing (probably): this should also be |
| 4 |
>> included/cross-referenced in tree-layout.tex for the repo-level |
| 5 |
>> package.mask file. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> This hasn't been discussed so far, and I think it is way too late to |
| 8 |
> consider it still for EAPI 6. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Well, a big use case stated in bug 282296 is package.mask in overlays, |
| 11 |
which I assume refers to the repo-level one rather than one inside an |
| 12 |
actual profile. If people haven't made it clear that they want that, I |
| 13 |
think it's because of imprecise language rather than because they don't |
| 14 |
actually want it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
(And this has been argued over for long enough - I'd really rather not |
| 17 |
have it go on ever further when people realise the spec still doesn't |
| 18 |
allow what they're trying to do.) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Also, why should package.mask be treated differently from the other |
| 21 |
> files in the top-level profiles/ directory? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
For consistency, they should probably all (except repo_name and eapi) |
| 24 |
allow directories, yes, but a couple of the others were mentioned in the |
| 25 |
bug and it seems people decided there wasn't any need to allow it for |
| 26 |
the rest of them. Going the other way and making none of them allow |
| 27 |
directories isn't really better in that regard because then the repo |
| 28 |
package.mask is different from the profile one. |
Archives