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 DE81413877A for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:37:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EB42EE0A8D; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:36:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11CFCE08F0 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:36:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from marga.jer-c2.orkz.net (D4B2706A.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [212.178.112.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jer) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C665D34015D for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:36:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:36:43 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch Message-ID: <20140630223643.4ddd0be3@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <53B1BF62.2020007@gentoo.org> References: <20140630040153.GA668@linux1> <53B14A33.7040108@gentoo.org> <20140630172738.28f9f32a@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <53B1BF62.2020007@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; i686-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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 53b93fe3-c47f-472b-9f73-dad71ead9378 X-Archives-Hash: 5603f3eab9bc0ebaabe2e5aaf0c2b11b On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:49:54 -0400 Joshua Kinard wrote: > So a mask on > "=sys-devel/gcc-4.9.0" with the reason of "Masked for testing" makes > perfect sense, especially since this version of gcc enables strong > stack-protection. In that case "this version of gcc enables strong stack-protection [which might kill your cow]" is a good masking reason. Go for it. "Masked for testing" never makes sense, let alone perfect sense, because the intent (testing) is prevented by the action (masking). On the other hand, "unmasked for testing" would make perfect sense. jer