Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: Portage should not mask packages globally, but only for some arches

2011-02-02 Thread Kacper Kowalik
W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:
 It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64 because
 it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords.  I believe it would be
 beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for arches that
 don't affect them at all.
 
 It seems better if the packages can be unmasked for x86 and amd64 and
 only kept hard-masked for ppc/ppc64 while they wait for keywords.
 Otherwise, all arches will feel the effect of the slowest one without
 there being a need for this.
 
 
I don't know what gave you the idea that ppc* has anything to do with
masking/unmasking of KDE-4.6. Just 2 facts:
 1) you can unmask anything by using /etc/portage/package.unmask,
therefore nothing can ever hold *you* back
 2) arches already have independent package.mask files, see
${PORTDIR}/profiles/arch/powerpc/package.mask for an example.

Best regards,
Kacper Kowalik



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[gentoo-dev] Suggestion: Portage should not mask packages globally, but only for some arches

2011-02-01 Thread Nikos Chantziaras
It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64 because 
it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords.  I believe it would be 
beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for arches that 
don't affect them at all.


It seems better if the packages can be unmasked for x86 and amd64 and 
only kept hard-masked for ppc/ppc64 while they wait for keywords. 
Otherwise, all arches will feel the effect of the slowest one without 
there being a need for this.