On 11/21/10 20:30, Ryan Hill wrote:
>> Actually not. Users are already familiar with the -9999 concept so there
>> is no point to add extra obstacles in their way. I am trying to find out
>> corner cases where double masking makes sense. Otherwise it makes no
>> sense to me. Actually the majority of users get confused when a package
>> is double masked. Just drop by forums etc and you will see :)
> 
> Again, that's the point.  If you can't figure out how to get around a
> double mask then you have no business installing live ebuilds.

I know how to do it and still am grateful if I don't have to do both of
them.  It's not about users only.


> If you want to change the policy to recommend
> dropping keywords rather than using package.mask then I support it.

+1 for KEYWORDS="".  Less effort, less likely to break the tree.



Sebastian

Reply via email to