On Thursday 13 of August 2009 12:35:43 Tiziano Müller wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 12.08.2009, 23:55 -0600 schrieb Ryan Hill: > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:46:56 +0100 > > > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:41:30 +0200 > > > > > > Tomáš Chvátal <scarab...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > Also we should allow the stuff as directory thingus (portage already > > > > handles it right). > > > > > > That's a seperate thing that needs EAPI control. You'll need to propose > > > it for EAPI 4 if you want that. > > > > Why is that (seriously curious, not disagreeing)? Portage has supported > > this for quite a while now. Does the current PMS disallow it? > > > > What I've really wanted for a long time is different package.mask files > > for different types of masks. eg. > > > > package.mask/broken.mask (qa.mask?) > > package.mask/removal.mask > > package.mask/security.mask > > package.mask/testing.mask > > To avoid collision with the current package.mask I'd prefer > package.mask.d/ for the directory. Also makes the transition easy since > we can generate package.mask out of the files in package.mask.d/.
package.mask.d being directory and not used internally by PM - so being just a convention (which may be used for manually or scripted generation of resulting package.mask as dev-zero proposed- it's now utilized in kde-testing overlay because package.mask dir used to cause paludis crashes) can be implemented just now with no PMS changes (since PM is supposed to ignore unknown files/directories in there?). I'd suggest allowing package.mask as either directory or file though, no need for entities multiplying... besides the reference implementation in already there for ages. -- regards MM
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
