Le lundi 02 mars 2009 à 16:48 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : > On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:41:23 +0200 > Mart Raudsepp <l...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > So here the reverting of a masking in gentoo-x86 is quite > intentional and currently desired. > > This is fundamentally broken as a concept. > > Adding an overlay should not have any impact upon other repositories. > It should be possible for a user to add an overlay, and make limited > use of that repository, without having to worry that the mere act of > adding that overlay will make massive changes to what's visible in > other repositories. > > Overlays shouldn't be altering the visibility of things outside of > that overlay without explicit user action.
well that's unfortunate that it doesn't fit that view but that's still what was desired. See next block for details. > The way forward here is to identify what you're trying to achieve, > whilst ignoring how things are currently defined or what is or is not > possible. Then we can look at that and work out whether it can be > mapped to an existing solution or some easily-implementable new > solution. Starting with implementation is the wrong approach. We didn't implement anything but let's just talk about what we wanted to see. We simply wanted overlay users to keep testing gnome 2.24 components that were masked or using masked packages in base/package.mask so we just made sure those packages had the proper keyword visibility. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue <e...@gentoo.org> Gentoo
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
