On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 12:57:08PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:56:16 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | The devmanual states that they should not "generally" be added to the > | tree softmasked or unmasked. It does not state that they should never > | be added as such at all. Or, in other words, there can be exceptions. > > It's not a hard ban because when I wrote it I was thinking that maybe > some day someone would come up with a legitimate reason for it. You've > yet to do that, so you don't get to take the exception clause.
The proposal was to change it to a hard ban. You say that there could be legitimate reasons for (un)stable CVS ebuilds. What I'm saying is that they're valid from a portage POV even without reasons, that they're currently used, and that the current stable CVS ebuilds are indeed a bad idea. So far, I don't think you disagree, but if you do, please explain. I then said that *you* say there can be legitimate reasons for them. So why do *I* have to come up with examples of it? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
