Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Martin Vaeth <va...@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de> napisa=C5=82(a): >> Even less: The discussion in this part of the thread was >> only about the implicit connection of package.accept_keywords >> with *use.stable.mask, i.e. about removing the >> side effect of unmasking USE-flags by these files. > > Oh, then it doesn't have to do anything with PMS. Portage config files > are purely a choice of portage developers, and this can be done as soon > as you convince them this is the right thing to do.
I also thought so, first, but unfortunately PMS is here clear in its formulation: "... package.use.stable.mask ... do the same thing [as package.use.mask]. These files, however, act only on packages which are merged due to a stable keyword..." There is no distinction about the location where the permission to install an unstable keyword comes from.
