From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGOfe-0007aK-CQ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:27:02 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8GML8HL030339; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:21:08 GMT Received: from griffon26.kfk4ever.com (griffon26.demon.nl [82.161.57.89]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8GMIoPr004367 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:18:50 GMT Received: by griffon26.kfk4ever.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 864D3A0A582; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:23:06 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:23:06 +0200 From: Maurice van der Pot To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Message-ID: <20050916222306.GG13507@kfk4ever.com> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20050915205149.GB22270@vino.zko.hp.com> <1126902358.9857.6.camel@Memoria.anyarch.net> <200509161643.36591.vapier@gentoo.org> <200509161750.39591.vapier@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XRI2XbIfl/05pQwm" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200509161750.39591.vapier@gentoo.org> X-PGP-Key: http://www.kfk4ever.com/~griffon26/pubkey.asc X-URL: http://www.kfk4ever.com/ X-Archives-Salt: 3d6d21bf-dfc4-4ae0-b138-8c9e042b2d5d X-Archives-Hash: ace37f9671f33d405a11ebb56bb0ab81 --XRI2XbIfl/05pQwm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 05:50:39PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > actually, going with say 'testing.mask' instead of '?arch' may be better = =2E..=20 > reinforce the fact that this is a package-level issue rather than=20 > arch-specific Let me get things straight. We would want this because it's the least of=20 two evils? On one hand ?arch isn't nice because it's package-level instead of=20 arch-specific, so it doesn't belong among keywords.=20 On the other hand testing.mask (if it's like package.mask) takes this=20 (package-level) stuff and moves it out of the ebuilds it belongs to and=20 dumps it all in one file. So we'd want this because we don't want to introduce something new in the ebuilds? Just getting things straight before expressing my opinion explicitly =3D] Maurice. --=20 Maurice van der Pot Gentoo Linux Developer griffon26@gentoo.org http://www.gentoo.org Creator of BiteMe! griffon26@kfk4ever.com http://www.kfk4ever.com --XRI2XbIfl/05pQwm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDK0XKMGnpIbeahxwRAtbyAJ9t8AHlkEOP9mjJYAnfXovspvw5RwCdEAdT 7p5TlyPJbve3I3LorqtHmiE= =Be5f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XRI2XbIfl/05pQwm-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list