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 233F2138247 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:59:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 263A0E0A5F; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:59:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45866E0943 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:59:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (static-81-219-167-7.devs.futuro.pl [81.219.167.7]) (using SSLv3 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0692A33F199; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:58:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:58:48 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: dilfridge@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask Message-ID: <20131116135848.65f64151@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201311161350.17054.dilfridge@gentoo.org> References: <52864645.2070506@gentoo.org> <201311161350.17054.dilfridge@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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; micalg=PGP-SHA512; boundary="Sig_/FgYCV2PPmqTvHS3zq0wlF_U"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 1755581b-b4fc-46dc-802b-5dff79856210 X-Archives-Hash: 9866880a33eeb18285c3dc49e54682b3 --Sig_/FgYCV2PPmqTvHS3zq0wlF_U Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dnia 2013-11-16, o godz. 13:50:11 "Andreas K. Huettel" napisa=C5=82(a): > Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth: >=20 > > Probably a lot of the confusion could be avoided if > > /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords would not implicitly > > unmask useflags. >=20 > How would you handle the case if a package has only one version in portag= e and=20 > that one is stable?=20 Unmask it through use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask in /etc/portage/profile? Then we clear separation between masked packages and masked flags. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/FgYCV2PPmqTvHS3zq0wlF_U Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJSh2wIXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2REJCMDdDQzRGMERBRDA2RUEwQUZFNDFC MDdBMUFFQUVGQjQ0NjRFAAoJELB6GurvtEZOjfcP/3OSjZorl1aSKEN/fujDGqOD fcpF4RfSxoBndknWRx0LGithyahcPjnKXGEe7qwgewB2tzY4GKtWXVZcoj4ncaV5 1aSeQhCfhEK70bH2h5/oELJ01fxS6BvCUDhQiJ05dR3jpTUs6wbXpT0pQ9CRA/kL h2u/7EvfhVlM37FqS6VxWIW5SnjQZi0bx16VjzFYICrlbm76EQFBJMNnrWwW+shr gblJ0DhD1Ce0duM7ma+CCNPdxq/BirWSL0x546NeMRWVLLCPiONTD0CPVP0wrSWF 92g5I0LVYhc9118GB1NKiEpnXGbxHvpz7sGR6gac2ym+mGPLSugL4KHmjKqnvG5/ u3/NEcEgBqbp98eXzJ+Ufp8bHVg02N9/bDHY0//kBuYhUQszJANGoZh3iP2tMp9o 6YigPGEPN009+QKIhXmlz/VFqAI8rMjDTGDv5tHAFz+NXF87hgygJ4X6b14wPeQm /VfQ367RIkCARQA6FNQ1FoFFar9rd6xA+AODccekvYIInuR6IHGYsnebO+gjHMbJ LlfXTcjL530hFjwf21gkbuxz9HKcapd6waFJ+BHKl+fU0NtY4MSUqfO54rP6XVKK vHUGekV6PVAsieUsprEAkcZy1RybIm3vpRp41CtG7Mgzy3offsNHYdW5REFD1Ltt Jng2ARxh4PmEc+ljfigJ =yplB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/FgYCV2PPmqTvHS3zq0wlF_U--