On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 19:02 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: > 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.
Umm... I already took care of x86/alpha, both of which I am on the arch team for, as well as added release@ to CC, since most of the profiles involved were made by Release Engineering and the architecture teams. There were a few people that I missed in the discussions, namely Gentoo/*BSD. This was not on purpose but more an oversight. I tried to kindly ask you the other day on IRC to add items to the bug that needed to be done, rather than continue with your current course of action of trying to lay blame to everyone when they make a mistake. At this point, I'll have to agree with Mike by saying that if you're not going to assist on a technical level with the bug and discussion, to please not comment, at all. Diego, a few people from the portage team have said that they dislike using version masks in the packages file. I agree with them completely. It causes quite a few problems. To be simple, all masks should be in package.mask rather than in packages. This has been the case since the per-profile package.mask was introduced. Unfortunately, as with many things in the portage world, we can't just turn off "old" functionality over night due to the amount of system that we would break. This means there needs to be a transition period. The fact that something works now really is more of a side-effect than an expected behavior. I plan on going through all of the "default-linux" profiles and cleaning them up in this regard, after speaking with each arch team that seems affected by the change. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
