From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from honker.jamponi.net (dslr-143.madison.chorus.net [216.165.182.143]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with SMTP id C27ABAC524 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 11:26:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 9308 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2002 16:26:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO honker.jamponi.net) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; 18 Aug 2002 16:26:44 -0000 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 11:26:44 -0500 From: Jon Nelson To: Jonathan Kelly Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask Message-Id: <20020818112644.21a98116.jnelson@jamponi.net> In-Reply-To: <20020818165734.6029f4bc.j0n@tpg.com.au> References: <3D5D7C8C.7080002@werner-productions.de> <1029539321.12380.3.camel@waterhouse.internal.lan> <20020818140440.698d6380.j0n@tpg.com.au> <1029652282.5860.5.camel@waterhouse.internal.lan> <20020818165734.6029f4bc.j0n@tpg.com.au> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.1 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: be521f15-8a3a-4b72-8ae6-e4ac1152176a X-Archives-Hash: 260a6199937ae62d8b00ef8dbb5825f1 On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 16:57:34 +1000 Jonathan Kelly wrote: > > It would make sense (to me anyway) if the local ebuilds in > > $PORTDIR_OVERLAY were *NOT* checked against packages.mask, that way us .. > I think that is a logical and great idea. I disgree. I think it's a hack that doesn't really solve the problem at hand, which is "supplementary" package masking, using the package mask in /usr/portage as the 'canonical' package mask and then using a second package mask to over ride that. PORTDIR_OVERLAY is there for just one reason, to provide *local* ebuilds. If the behavior of ebuilds is different here, that is an inferred behavior and not a logical one. package masking and ebuilds are separate, keep their interfaces separate. -- Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth. Jon Nelson C and Python Code Gardener