On Wed, 2019-09-25 at 21:30 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > So maybe the most obvious solution would be to remove KEYWORDS from
> > ebuilds unconditionally using cdrom.eclass (and their reverse
> > dependencies), and mask USE=cdinstall on the rest.
> We should find who has copies of each of the
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 22:14:36 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if we're doing the right things by adding KEYWORDS to
> packages using cdrom.eclass. After all, it's somewhat similar to live
> ebuilds. That is, data is fetched outside regular PM mechanisms (though
> not implicitl
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:14:36PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if we're doing the right things by adding KEYWORDS to
> packages using cdrom.eclass. After all, it's somewhat similar to live
> ebuilds. That is, data is fetched outside regular PM mechanisms (though
> not impl
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 4:14 PM Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if we're doing the right things by adding KEYWORDS to
> packages using cdrom.eclass. After all, it's somewhat similar to live
> ebuilds. That is, data is fetched outside regular PM mechanisms (though
> not implicitly t
Hi,
I'm wondering if we're doing the right things by adding KEYWORDS to
packages using cdrom.eclass. After all, it's somewhat similar to live
ebuilds. That is, data is fetched outside regular PM mechanisms (though
not implicitly through Internet, arguably) and it is not covered by any
checksums.
