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 6221E138247 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:27:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D043E0AAD; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:27:46 +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 354B9E0A9C for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:27:44 +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 29DE833F277; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:27:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:27:34 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: vaeth@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask Message-ID: <20131117202734.20f5a6a6@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: References: <52864645.2070506@gentoo.org> <201311161346.30387.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <99B7EF10-7604-41F5-952E-F008E02CE26A@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_/6CTU5puyLeVyhiK.0uB3R2b"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 69eeea91-75cb-4fa4-a921-fb202a8b2365 X-Archives-Hash: 0ffb6a53876a243dbe17950bff7376a4 --Sig_/6CTU5puyLeVyhiK.0uB3R2b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dnia 2013-11-17, o godz. 19:18:35 Martin Vaeth napisa=C5=82(a): > Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >>> Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth: > >>>=20 > >>>> If this is not very hard to implement in portage, I would > >>>> strongly vote to remove this implicit connection: > > > > I assume this is about the *.use.stable.mask files ... >=20 > Even less: The discussion in this part of the thread was > only about the implicit connection of package.accept_keywords > with *use.stable.mask, i.e. about removing the > side effect of unmasking USE-flags by these files. Oh, then it doesn't have to do anything with PMS. Portage config files are purely a choice of portage developers, and this can be done as soon as you convince them this is the right thing to do. I've tried [1]. [1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D491166 --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/6CTU5puyLeVyhiK.0uB3R2b Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJSiRinXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2REJCMDdDQzRGMERBRDA2RUEwQUZFNDFC MDdBMUFFQUVGQjQ0NjRFAAoJELB6GurvtEZOPC4P/RI1xUSBVDJc2JXp9WO8M7hs M/W4F6ZPw318k8S+mPakrwQmJBcKaf8aDsO0n4gjAkrkU5dyDg2kmMe26t62QA+s 0ti9xtJ7hDFx6/+Q5aPapbk190lGk0aRc8dyJyS+7LSdV1K8vO2lJPTgIr3Ek9LX xbOSdSb+G0vztx4VDMu/GmwkqlNFRnNCv0WVBlPOiOWT+34kiFkzRqY+Y7i0IEk8 Cp11BsGdMykIbzfbq/DGZ/LCnffiv76w6oaG4X1/GszYLNpfyjlNzV6Wy3eyFFWe Q3xHZ+KxWWj1VSp2oorR5R1670tvHfPTsR9aQnPBCxYgOPMcXJ0a5jbuKf8Sf3Q5 L6b3x/qQMjSR43uyIJONqyqnfQCHTC2fBi5oSngEB+jas7JQcwa6WrECgBpi2c6L c/ZRmuOWMgUjLnRKuExDOxSZ4FLHJo1VZ60FE9iYn045w6Wp7TcpD2YQHBHAp+Ik mw/G6sGiz2e9QEc++0i3V7Id6NJncxvAnH/J0Oh26PhdtpdKx82/6fHTZS+ktV4x FqkupEW/cBbAwZZNoRi142fY9TV2ymbS2UFW0XKRyx809r89eUFH3TzpZoII7liO gimpuHL+wZ2sGyk++7mXftFOUtqzhnFDLSdwzLrjzt3JYlzOikhFdl22dzvSy9aE PQUuMd0rntpwwOjKlHTk =hJGe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/6CTU5puyLeVyhiK.0uB3R2b--