Am Sonntag, 17. November 2013, 20:51:36 schrieb Martin Vaeth: > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Martin Vaeth <va...@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de> napisa=C5=82(a): > >> Even less: The discussion in this part of the thread was > >> only about the implicit connection of package.accept_keywords > >> with *use.stable.mask, i.e. about removing the > >> side effect of unmasking USE-flags by these files. > > > > Oh, then it doesn't have to do anything with PMS. Portage config files > > are purely a choice of portage developers, and this can be done as soon > > as you convince them this is the right thing to do. > > I also thought so, first, but unfortunately PMS is here clear > in its formulation: > > "... package.use.stable.mask ... do the same thing [as package.use.mask]. > These files, however, act only on packages which are merged due to a > stable keyword..." > > There is no distinction about the location where the permission > to install an unstable keyword comes from.
Yep. I wrote that. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
