On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:29:19 +0200
Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote:

> El dom, 13-06-2010 a las 14:43 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > El dom, 13-06-2010 a las 14:16 +0300, Petteri Räty escribió:
> > > On 06/11/2010 12:27 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > From my point of view, I would prefer to:
> > > > 1. Mask "caps" for net-wireless/bluez on affected arches,
> > > > letting us to keep bluez keyworded.
> > > > 2. Open two bug reports as done with current policy: one for
> > > > keywording libcap-ng and other to check bluez works ok with it
> > > > asking arch team to unmask that USE flag if possible.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > There's nothing preventing you from already doing this.
> > > package.use.mask is something package maintainers themselves
> > > should be looking after for their packages.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Petteri
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > OK, thanks a lot :-D
> 
> The problem is that hppa team seems to not allow others than they to
> edit their package.use.mask :-/, is there any special reason for it?

What is the problem? The files in place ask you to file a bug report
instead of fiddling with the files yourselves. I put that in place
because I got (fucking) tired of seeing the after effects of people
fiddling with the arch profile files without 1) consideration, 2)
informing the involved arch team. What do you expect? File a bloody bug
report detailing the (commit) problem you are facing and you will
probably see 1) response and 2) cooperation. If you fuck around with
the arch profile files without doing any of that, you will face 1) a
lack of willingness to cooperate and 2) evil wrath.


Regards,
     jer

Reply via email to