| 1 |
On 14 August 2012 23:20, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:02:04 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> There's still the issue that we haven't decided what [use] deps do |
| 5 |
>> when they show up in profile files. We were sticking at 1 until we |
| 6 |
>> worked that out. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Ah, about that. It will be useful if [use] deps in package.mask worked |
| 9 |
> unlike in package.use.mask, thus giving us a tool to temporarily mask |
| 10 |
> packages which are broken only with given flags. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Do we have a verdict on this? What Michał suggests for package.mask |
| 13 |
sounds OK to me, but use deps in package.use, package.use.mask, etc |
| 14 |
could be rather nastier, and I'd be inclined to ban those unless |
| 15 |
someone has a better idea. |
Archives