Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:29, Simon Stelling wrote: > >>Come on. Is this a 'policy doesn't say I have to be sane' war? It's >>absolutely reasonable to p.mask a package that is pending for removal. That >>way you give the users a timeframe which they can search for alternative >>tools in. > > > This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at > package.mask. > Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is void. And even > if - four weeks are a too long, imho.
slon ~ # emerge -uDNpv world These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating world dependencies \ !!! Packages for the following atoms are either all !!! masked or don't exist: games-fps/cube dev-util/eclipse-pydev-bin [...] Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
