On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:32:56 +0000 (UTC)
Mark Bateman <couldbe@soon.com> wrote:
> > It is not the business of PMS to enforce undocumented features that
> > Portage supports only by accident and that aren't used in the tree.
> 
> PMS doesn't depict just what portage should do, just what ebuild's in
> the main tree are to expect.

PMS documents what ebuilds may or may not rely upon from the package
manager. PMS, like the Portage document, says that package.mask is a
file.

> This is a good feature (intentional or not) of portage and is already
> finding usage in overlays.

And it shouldn't be until it's gone through the proper process to
become a documented, controlled feature rather than an accident people
are exploiting.

Seriously, this isn't difficult to do. I get the impression people are
only trying to avoid doing it properly here so they can establish a
precedent of not doing things properly...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh