On Saturday 30 September 2006 20:06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 30 September 2006 19:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > isnt that the point of putting a comment above a mask ?
> > # this package wont work on this profile
> > bar/foo
>
> Indeed, but the problem is that the masks are a
On Monday 02 October 2006 16:03, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> 1) Specifying >=sys-libs/glibc-2.4 and thus a corresponding entry in package.mask
... is redundant
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 30 September 2006 04:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1].
Posted on the bug before noticing there was a -dev thread.
"""
Just about everybody has the wrong idea here.
1) Specifying =sys-libs/glibc-2.4
and thus a corresponding entry
On Saturday 30 September 2006 19:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> isnt that the point of putting a comment above a mask ?
> # this package wont work on this profile
> bar/foo
Indeed, but the problem is that the masks are all normalised in one big mask.
Which means that users might want to unmask certai
On Saturday 30 September 2006 00:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> 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 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
On Saturday 30 September 2006 15:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> It is not a change in policy. It's a codification of existing practice.
The behaviour of portage seems to ask you to differ on this. But you also seem
to lose your point.
I'm discussing the change of behaviour with respect to portage,
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:40:44 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Saturday 30 September 2006 14:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149536#c4
|
| You bring up the point that you don't take any argument?
|
| The argument is still valid
On Saturday 30 September 2006 14:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149536#c4
You bring up the point that you don't take any argument?
The argument is still valid, nobody provided a reason for the change.
I don't take anybody's word as a granted, so I don't care i
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:37:59 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Additionally, it would be nice if these discussions involved
| concerned arches and were not done ex post in future cases.
Uh, Jakub, part of the design of the devmanual was that it would be
possible for the right people to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 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].
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149536#c4
If I were you, I'd rather not mention that bug. Really don't see what
y
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].
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149536#c4
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.or
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 be
13 matches
Mail list logo
