Dnia 2013-11-17, o godz. 19:13:59 "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfri...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> Am Samstag, 16. November 2013, 13:58:48 schrieb Michał Górny: > > Dnia 2013-11-16, o godz. 13:50:11 > > > > "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfri...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > > > Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth: > > > > Probably a lot of the confusion could be avoided if > > > > /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords would not implicitly > > > > unmask useflags. > > > > > > How would you handle the case if a package has only one version in > > > portage and that one is stable? > > > > Unmask it through use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask > > in /etc/portage/profile? > > > > Then we clear separation between masked packages and masked flags. > > Not practical... Maintainer has to modify profile files then for each and any > stable request. Excuse me, but why in the world would maintainer unmask stable-masked flags when stabilizing a package? This doesn't really seem meaningful, and also means the maintainer will try to stabilize dependencies which aren't meant to go stable yet... -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
