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 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GTfSn-00072r-Eh for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:05:11 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k8UE3cvf024085; Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:03:38 GMT Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.188]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8UE0mO4028735 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:00:48 GMT Received: from [84.166.111.84] (helo=delenn.genone.homeip.net) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu5) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML25U-1GTfOZ1bwS-0007g6; Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:00:47 +0200 Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:00:51 +0200 From: Marius Mauch To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask Message-ID: <20060930160051.1fae9928@delenn.genone.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <200609300640.14616@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> References: <200609300640.14616@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.5.0-rc3 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:7e6c91d1b14dbccceb2f2166522fa0f6 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id k8UE0mO4028735 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id k8UE3cxY024085 X-Archives-Salt: 7bf05f09-c1d7-48f7-bc09-93d2ccf6e327 X-Archives-Hash: 6e8fc6dacd8196fd8932463c61431cfa On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:40:07 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten=F2" wrote: > This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1]. >=20 > The bug points to a behaviour change in handling of the profiles > file, that, in my opinion at least, needs to be discussed, as there > are profiles relying on the old behaviour (Gentoo/FreeBSD's to state > some). >=20 > For what I can tell, the current behaviour has the advantage of > providing a different masking reason for packages that are *needed to > some version* for the profile to be complete, and for packages that > are know not to work on a profile. [snip] Personally I dislike the masking aspect of the packages file, as it's mostly redundant, problematic in some cases (e.g. requring a specific gcc versions masks all older gcc versions implicitly) and I think having a single file to serve two purposes (set "system" and masking packages) is crappy. Also overriding profile masks (yes, this is valid sometimes) isn't intuitive either as there is no "unmask" feature. This isn't connected to the mentioned bug at all btw. However I understand your reasoning about unmasking things with package.unmask, the question is how common that use case would be? Marius --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list