On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:30:15PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:05:44 +0000 > Markos Chandras <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Isn't that the point? People should be discouraged in every way not to > > > use > > > live ebuilds. I'd add a third if we had one. :) > > > > > > But yes, if I had to pick only one I'd go with dropping keywords over > > > package.mask. In fact it looks like I have some live ebuilds in the tree > > > that do exactly that. > > > > > 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. > > But this is getting off topic. If you want to change the policy to recommend > dropping keywords rather than using package.mask then I support it. > package.mask has the disadvantage that it's too easy to accidentally unmask > live versions with >=. And nothing stops someone from doing both if they > want. > > > -- > fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense > toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime > @ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
If the majority of the devs ( at least of those who participate to this thread ) is positive, then I will commit a patch to devmanual and possibly migrate the cvs&svn sources pages into a single one. -- Markos Chandras (hwoarang) Gentoo Linux Developer Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org Key ID: 441AC410 Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410
pgpsfTTz5FfRI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
