On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 15:16 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:51:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:41:43 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > | I then said that *you* say there can be legitimate reasons for them. > > | So why do *I* have to come up with examples of it? > > > > Well that's just it. I didn't say there were legitimate reasons, I just > > didn't commit myself to saying that there weren't. > > Fair enough, but if you read "can" as "could" in my posts, they still > make sense. > > Two reasons for CVS ebuilds that aren't hardmasked, by the way: > > One: see emacs-cvs-22*; it's more reliable than the emacs-22* snapshot. > (Something like this is only for ~arch.)
> Two: when a specific revision is wanted, but snapshots aren't possible > for legal reasons. (This could even be marked stable.) If it can't be checksummed it should never be marked stable. *VCS* ebuilds simply can't be checksumed and there are far to many ways to abuse such things. Think MiM -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
