-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/11/13 06:37, Duncan wrote:
> emerge --ask foo would also do what is currently done by: emerge
> --ask --autounmask-write foo
>
> Which is exactly what I said, and what you're now saying it won't
> do, while pointing at comment 10 which says e
Alexander Berntsen posted on Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:23:50 +0100 as excerpted:
>> 4) You're saying emerge --ask foo would write the config
> No. Please read comment 10[0].
Quoting one example from comment 10:
emerge --ask foo
would also do what is currently done by: emerge --ask --autounmask-write
Alexander Berntsen posted on Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:03:36 +0100 as excerpted:
> On 21/11/13 12:19, Duncan wrote:
>> I'm with zmedico in comment #11, and *STRONGLY* oppose this change as
>> you're proposing. Current autounmask is **NOT** useless.
> How is it not? Consider comment 6[0] and 10[1].
I r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/11/13 14:34, Duncan wrote:
> I read comment 10, and am objecting based on it
You have fundamentally misunderstood everything in it. Please reread it.
> 1) Because the dependency calculations take time, I normally use
> --ask so I don't have t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/11/13 12:19, Duncan wrote:
> I'm with zmedico in comment #11, and *STRONGLY* oppose this change
> as you're proposing. Current autounmask is **NOT** useless.
How is it not? Consider comment 6[0] and 10[1].
> FWIW, I have a very specific port
Alexander Berntsen posted on Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:21:02 +0100 as excerpted:
> After talking to zmedico privately, and raising the issue and discussing
> it with people in bug #481578[0], I implemented the behaviour described
> in a comment[1] on said bug.
>
> I sent this to zmedico almost two mont
