Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/1] Revert "repoman: deprecate netsurf.eclass."

2020-08-14 Thread Zac Medico
On 8/14/20 2:43 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > This reverts commit a73024729860f9224b8d1660d24c450080b67d9f. This > eclass was successfully purged from the tree, so the deprecation is no > longer needed. And eventually, to address an eblit infestation, > another eclass with the same name will

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/1] Revert "repoman: deprecate netsurf.eclass."

2020-08-14 Thread Michael Orlitzky
This reverts commit a73024729860f9224b8d1660d24c450080b67d9f. This eclass was successfully purged from the tree, so the deprecation is no longer needed. And eventually, to address an eblit infestation, another eclass with the same name will return. The new one will not be deprecated.

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] profile masking

2020-08-14 Thread Michał Górny
On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 15:42 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 17:31 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > When pkgs are masked in the profile, it affects all variants of that > > > pkgs, even the ones that are in other

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] profile masking

2020-08-14 Thread Zac Medico
On 8/14/20 1:42 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 8/14/20 1:08 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Zac Medico wrote: >> >>> On 8/14/20 8:42 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: Yes, I know I can add that in profile/package.mask but I am looking for the bigger picture here. This has to

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] profile masking

2020-08-14 Thread Zac Medico
On 8/14/20 1:08 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Zac Medico wrote: > >> On 8/14/20 8:42 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >>> Yes, I know I can add that in profile/package.mask but I am looking >>> for the bigger picture here. This has to stop somehow, there need to >>> be

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] profile masking

2020-08-14 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Zac Medico wrote: > On 8/14/20 8:42 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> Yes, I know I can add that in profile/package.mask but I am looking >> for the bigger picture here. This has to stop somehow, there need to >> be something that limits the mask scope to the repo/overlay

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] profile masking

2020-08-14 Thread Zac Medico
On 8/14/20 8:42 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 17:31 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: >> >>> When pkgs are masked in the profile, it affects all variants of that >>> pkgs, even the ones that are in other overlays. >>> Example:

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] profile masking

2020-08-14 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 17:31 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > When pkgs are masked in the profile, it affects all variants of that > > pkgs, even the ones that are in other overlays. > > Example: > > !!! The following installed packages

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] profile masking

2020-08-14 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > When pkgs are masked in the profile, it affects all variants of that > pkgs, even the ones that are in other overlays. > Example: > !!! The following installed packages are masked: > - sys-auth/sssd-::transmode (masked by: package.mask) >

[gentoo-portage-dev] profile masking

2020-08-14 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
When pkgs are masked in the profile, it affects all variants of that pkgs, even the ones that are in other overlays. Example: !!! The following installed packages are masked: - sys-auth/sssd-::transmode (masked by: package.mask) /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask: # Matt Turner (2020-08-13)