On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:40:07 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1]. > > The bug points to a behaviour change in handling of the profiles > file, that, in my opinion at least, needs to be discussed, as there > are profiles relying on the old behaviour (Gentoo/FreeBSD's to state > some). > > For what I can tell, the current behaviour has the advantage of > providing a different masking reason for packages that are *needed to > some version* for the profile to be complete, and for packages that > are know not to work on a profile. [snip] Personally I dislike the masking aspect of the packages file, as it's mostly redundant, problematic in some cases (e.g. requring a specific gcc versions masks all older gcc versions implicitly) and I think having a single file to serve two purposes (set "system" and masking packages) is crappy. Also overriding profile masks (yes, this is valid sometimes) isn't intuitive either as there is no "unmask" feature. This isn't connected to the mentioned bug at all btw. However I understand your reasoning about unmasking things with package.unmask, the question is how common that use case would be? Marius -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
