On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:05:44 +0000 Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not to use > > live ebuilds. I'd add a third if we had one. :) > > > > But yes, if I had to pick only one I'd go with dropping keywords over > > package.mask. In fact it looks like I have some live ebuilds in the tree > > that do exactly that. > > > Actually not. Users are already familiar with the -9999 concept so there > is no point to add extra obstacles in their way. I am trying to find out > corner cases where double masking makes sense. Otherwise it makes no > sense to me. Actually the majority of users get confused when a package > is double masked. Just drop by forums etc and you will see :) Again, that's the point. If you can't figure out how to get around a double mask then you have no business installing live ebuilds. But this is getting off topic. If you want to change the policy to recommend dropping keywords rather than using package.mask then I support it. package.mask has the disadvantage that it's too easy to accidentally unmask live versions with >=. And nothing stops someone from doing both if they want. -- fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime @ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
