Am Samstag, 30. September 2006 19:02 schrieb Jakub Moc: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to > > offer to the issue at hand > > > > let the people who work on portage handle it > > -mike > > Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs > from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW). This has little to do with why this change to the devmanual has been done.
> So, hiding the inconsistency via altering the profiles doesn't change > anything. Plus, the point of the bug's flame fest was that bugzilla > is not a proper place to request such behaviour changes, and > definitely not a reason for QA to mess with the profiles. Sticking > the stuff in package.mask won't make the inconsistent behaviour > vanish in any way, it will just hide it. It is not a behaviour change imho. The "packages" file changed its meaning subtly after introducing cascading profiles. As ciaranm already pointed out: It is not meant to mask "<"-like versions anymore. It's meant to - Describe the system package set - Define which versions are _at least_ needed for a profile. > So, I'd kinda appreciate if concerned folks (including portage and > relevant affected arches) were involved in this discussion, instead > of sneaking the changes in under QA disguise. Release engineering arch coordinators, which happen to be the people who maintain the profiles below default-linux/ for their relevant arches, have been CCed and Chris already stated that he forgot/didn't realize to fix this problem for no-nptl/2.4's package.mask. Jakub: Please reevaluate the behaviour you showed on both the bug and this mailing list. I for one don't consider it anywhere near appropriate. This shall be no offense, just a comment in regard that you can do better. Danny -- Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
