On 27/02/11 14:00, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:55:32 +0100
Bernd Steinhauser<[email protected]> wrote:
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".
No, that's not backwards compatible, and it doesn't fit in nicely with
repositories whose masks don't support tokens or untokened masks in
repositories which do support tokens.
Isn't that just a configuration issue (we're talking about package_unmask.conf,
right?)? IMO, Paludis should moan if there is such a mask and tell the user
about that.
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.
Whatever replaces PLATFORMS will be based upon whitelisting, not
blacklisting, so it'll be a different mechanism anyway...
Doesn't that require both whitelisting and blacklisting anyway (at least from a
user's point of view)?
BTW, are packages grouped in the usual way?
(i.e. (cat/foo1 cat/foo2) [[ ... ]])
_______________________________________________
Exherbo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
