| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Andreas K. Huettel schrieb: |
| 5 |
>> I've seen "masked" used to describe both ~ keywords and what we |
| 6 |
>> sometimes refer to as "hard masked". I'd rather refer to ~ keywords |
| 7 |
>> as unstable to keep the concepts separated. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> ~arch = unstable or testing (both are used) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> package.mask = package-masked |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> "masked" generally may mean "not available", f.ex. "masked by missing |
| 14 |
> keyword", but I agree that this usage is confusing. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Indeed. |
| 17 |
"hardmask" is used by packages.g.o and supposedly means "masked by |
| 18 |
package.mask" |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Packages can be masked by license too, and Portage complains about "mask by |
| 21 |
corruption" if the ebuilds don't match the Manifest. And if a package's |
| 22 |
RESTRICT is not in your ACCEPT_RESTRICT tokens, it will be masked too. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 27 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 28 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
iEYEARECAAYFAlUoQ9AACgkQ+gvH2voEPRBPFwCfdpGzEGfrEy45MVP2e/c9nqHM |
| 31 |
MQ8An1T081LnBl+i0UdeRVD0ZTLcuqOE |
| 32 |
=bWnP |
| 33 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives