| 1 |
On Monday 24 November 2008 10:15:46 Helmut Jarausch wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> portage-2.2.. has been masked. |
| 5 |
> /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask tells me why |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> "In order to ensure that portage-2.1.6 gets sufficient testing, |
| 8 |
> portage-2.2 will be masked in package.mask until portage-2.1.6 has |
| 9 |
> been marked stable." |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I feel like someone will try to educate me. |
| 12 |
> Yes, I can and will unmask it again, but why |
| 13 |
> am I forced to? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I'd prefer if package.mask is used for buggy or dangerous |
| 16 |
> packages only. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
+1 |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I ran into this same thing this morning and felt like mailing Zac a piece of |
| 21 |
my mind. Sanity prevailed though. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I still feeling quite deeply offended though that a package maintainer has |
| 24 |
forced me to jump through a hoop simply because he would like an earlier |
| 25 |
version to "get tested more". |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives