From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42C31381F3 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 06:49:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E99A6E0C14; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 06:49:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpout.karoo.kcom.com (smtpout.karoo.kcom.com [212.50.160.34]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D5DE0C0D for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 06:49:46 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,844,1367967600"; d="scan'208";a="27340304" Received: from unknown (HELO rathaus.eclipse.co.uk) ([109.176.177.153]) by smtpout.karoo.kcom.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2013 07:49:30 +0100 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 07:51:15 +0100 From: "Steven J. Long" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] [typo] Re: Re: Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo's progress. Message-ID: <20130809065115.GB8940@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <5203DEA5.30004@gentoo.org> <20130808204701.3b419e58@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20130808211103.4069d7ff@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <5204403D.8050209@gentoo.org> <52048088.8020400@gentoo.org> <20130809064224.GA8940@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130809064224.GA8940@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> X-Archives-Salt: 59a7ab68-14ec-465b-aa97-add7e172988c X-Archives-Hash: 4aaeadee759df02e3160ff3ceac0eb22 wrote: > It would seem to make sense if the packages are unmasked conditionally s/ conditionally// > in the parent, or the linux profile, and then unmasked in the profiles > that need them. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding. And for noise. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)