Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask

["Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <flameeyes@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1046 bytes --]

On Saturday 30 September 2006 15:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> It is not a change in policy. It's a codification of existing practice.
The behaviour of portage seems to ask you to differ on this. But you also seem 
to lose your point.

I'm discussing the change of behaviour with respect to portage, not the change 
to devmanual. Why am I not questioning the change to devmanual? Because the 
bug there is just required by Plasmaroo who act as a proxy between QA and 
devmanual itself, and thus not up to discuss anymore than a CVS commit.

But, the behaviour change for profiles (that currently, for bug or design, 
acts in a different way than your "existing practice" suggest) is up to 
debate, as I've found a few reasons not to back up such a change, and rather 
stick with the current behaviour.

So, again, why should we change the behaviour, other than to fullfill your 
request?

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]