On 27/02/11 13:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb
or they can just use no tokens at all, which still means "accept any
kind of mask".
If no token is specified, it should mean "accept no mask".
Maybe I got parts of it wrong, but I thought that one of the reasons why we want
to distinguish between different mask types is, that we don't want users to
blindly disable masks for packages.
If there is still need for a way to unmask all mask types, there could still be
a token 'any' or 'all' (depending on the interpretation of unmask files).
Should it be legal to not add a token at all? What about cases, where none of
the already listed ones fits? (i.e. 'broken', 'wip' or something else someone
could come up with)
The other thing which I currently don't like is – as mentioned before
– that I don't think it is a good design to do something completely
different for the stable/testing thing (for Exherbo: PLATFORMS).
I think the plan is at some point to kill PLATFORMS and move that into
profiles instead. But I've not seen any details on that, so for now I
think it's easier if we carry on treating PLATFORMS and masks as being
entirely independent.
The current change is good for sure, but maybe we could already ensure that we
don't have to change the whole thing again if we want to get rid of PLATFORMS in
its current implementation.
_______________________________________________
Exherbo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
