Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh <at> googlemail.com> writes: > PMS documents what ebuilds may or may not rely upon from the package > manager. PMS, like the Portage document, says that package.mask is a > file.
And main tree ebuild can rely on that. There are no directory-based package.mask in the main portage tree > And it shouldn't be until it's gone through the proper process to > become a documented, controlled feature rather than an accident people > are exploiting. > > Seriously, this isn't difficult to do. I get the impression people are > only trying to avoid doing it properly here so they can establish a > precedent of not doing things properly... > And if a developer would like to have it present in the main tree, sure push for an EAPI for it to be available in the main tree. But as a feature that portage has that overlays can use it is useful. Ebuilds in the main tree can still exist safe in the knowledge they won't have this
