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 95D8B138247 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D0C4CE0AF8; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:48:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo-p05-ob.rzone.de (mo-p05-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B03D3E0AEF for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:48:36 +0000 (UTC) X-RZG-AUTH: :I3kQYkG6f/ML/Lb0bAYFCBt+SpICkd7E+UrA1ycmip9RDA+sU5X/JQTnCoGlRL0+i6WQYg== X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo05 Received: from porto.localnet (tmo-103-94.customers.d1-online.com [80.187.103.94]) by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 32.13 DYNA|AUTH) with (TLSv1.0:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA id C02b6apAGCmYjbI for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:48:34 +0100 (CET) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:50:11 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.10.7-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.11.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <52864645.2070506@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: 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: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart14306721.UlUISsM9Mp"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201311161350.17054.dilfridge@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: a3f04369-2a39-475c-aa60-61b589d44137 X-Archives-Hash: 9365f3121b93b3226d28ef2dfc6f373d --nextPart14306721.UlUISsM9Mp Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth: > Probably a lot of the confusion could be avoided if > /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords would not implicitly > unmask useflags. How would you handle the case if a package has only one version in portage = and=20 that one is stable?=20 Just completely disable the features provided by stable.masked useflags? =46orce the existence of a revbump with an extra rebuild, just so there's a= n=20 unstable version around? Believe me, we've been thinking about this... =2D-=20 Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer (council, kde) dilfridge@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ --nextPart14306721.UlUISsM9Mp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABCgAGBQJSh2oDAAoJEJS/30SErRQv6w0P/RobdF33uvK5bFlUDFa36aqE XfeexeYK33QpbEGjyAbqa4uYd1pmhkzi/PkB+haKADxQfNbWQzFFDHsKIwciC01f EqfhiXqUczAZ58leCtzEg7eedlG8r1qn6WpbY2nSosCv4Vpfmanl3GdpgjaByqk1 HtA6sZAu76Y0no+9obqrFS15+K5IV71tlktGHqR38ajLqrU4YOzQ1HG+IzhYWAqW MbzykkEUTS5k9RsTQRu6nykhtw1Wp7dICLvUnybVdSlCv4uhqFsTuw8d21mMChyd M8rnwXoI8RHaceo47y8fE5VlJXmPHi68t2VRW13KEdEQj53PrzXgqErFAoqzHoyU 2Agb64Vo++C5tD5+Ju/Ndt2OOAR2+Kx1+cPTYoL5cl7Phhkjrt6NVnP1A3w4Zyu4 Gb+YfMDG9YVxYb8UDNsYg9ALYjNZpEZDwjOWd/nUP5Jp58dveOe4/nkVzXiqLQsP 0QXhoIOsgN3nSmQemi6n69nPV/vpy/57iebC9Prc/g/+8XpcOVfHF+Uox2HWnquz mu6nmU9sTum0KFaBrqpq09slbPaGJTjqlrbNAb00xG0m+y07TTs3n3Vi6Eja7u45 PDehK57R25bKqpZO114Z8Ch5QQ17PpvjGNyVQJVj82CEm6RPElO3XXL+2pSWYZk/ 30Bd2j0ggmd8d6iCRZL+ =wzPO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart14306721.UlUISsM9Mp--