Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 30 September 2006 13:02, Jakub Moc wrote: >> Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs >> from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW). > > the technical point is what is the expected behavior of the packages file ... > seems silly to duplicate masking across two different files > > what have you offered to this discussion ? nothing: so sit back and let the > people who actually work on this stuff handle it > -mike
It's not duplicating, exactly the opposite. Sticking the stuff into per-profile package.mask is duplicating the information, because portage handles it just fine without any such duplication (that's the whole point of Flameeyes' original mail). Now if you want to change this, nothing wrong with that except when someone goes moaning to bugzilla and QA starts messing with the profiles without any discussion. This is not a QA issue. If you want to change this behaviour, go provide some reason why it should be done and either you persuade the folks involved or not. In addition, those two kinds of masking (masked by profile vs. masked by package.mask) are not duplicating each other, they behave quite differently. For the rest, sorry but replies as "stop wasting everyone's time" or "sit back and let people who actually work do it" as not much polite and don't offer anything to this discussion either. Thanks. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
