| 1 |
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:12:17 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:11:55 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Whichever route we go, there's also the UI question: how do we |
| 7 |
> > > present this to users in a sensible way? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > The intent is not to anything clever but just mask the package. |
| 10 |
> > Intel users don't want mesa without support for their card; they |
| 11 |
> > simply don't want the broken version at all. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > It should be presented alike regular package.mask, with the whole |
| 14 |
> > atom string. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I'm not sure that it's that simple: what if a user has, say, intel |
| 17 |
> turned on only because it's on by default in profiles? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
In this particular case -- nothing, because he has by default other |
| 20 |
card settings which make mesa don't trigger the bug. It was simply |
| 21 |
a very weird bug which needed a simple solution to avoid spreading it |
| 22 |
on users. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
Michał Górny |
Archives