From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FC481382C5 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:53:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E03AE0907; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:53:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 057A1E08EF for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:53:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (host2092.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ulm) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F13E9335C5A; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:53:43 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <23220.56500.47110.798699@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:53:40 +0100 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New Portage fork: sys-apps/portage-mgorny In-Reply-To: <0559e21f-edcb-986f-0a0b-1bc54bc169a6@gmail.com> References: <1521745426.836.25.camel@gentoo.org> <20180322214732.GA4096@eddy> <1521756383.23424.0.camel@gentoo.org> <23220.52565.280134.566970@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <0559e21f-edcb-986f-0a0b-1bc54bc169a6@gmail.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) From: Ulrich Mueller 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="pgp+signed+E70+SrXPE4Lglf8"; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 218f152f-bb54-45ca-8a55-5205a4acee47 X-Archives-Hash: 54c349d796fc63fa25904a7853c93942 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --pgp+signed+E70+SrXPE4Lglf8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Francesco Riosa wrote: > Il 23/03/2018 10:48, Ulrich Mueller ha scritto: >> Conceptually that makes no sense. sys-devel/gcc is the name of an >> upstream package, so what does it even mean to mask it in one >> repository but not in another? If it's the same package, then it >> should behave in the same way, regardless of the repository its >> ebuild it hosted in (or the package being installed, in which case >> it is no longer in an ebuild repository). >> If it is a different package however, then it should have a >> different name. > Sorry to say it bluntly but this make no sense at all, even changing > a USE flag make the package behave wildly differently. Right, So you want USE dependencies, which we have. Nothing stops a package in an overlay from having additional USE flags. > Once we agree that an upstream (complex enough) package may have > different incarnations two ebuilds from different maintainers may > please differently the user. Still, masking is the wrong way to express such preferences. If you package.mask sys-devel/gcc then you say that something is wrong with that package. Which I believe is not what you want to express here. Ulrich --pgp+signed+E70+SrXPE4Lglf8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJatNyoAAoJEMMJBoUcYcJzq88IAIZSbdAljG5lDZrDDRf6GFPd tRm5v9xVSI9oSPUClqx3pgHPTHltlgk+bdnGTGJL3NmrVSvklG+HTeFOZet2Ho9g 8ITqDMWGZG5e3EQjArdgK01wGQHgbGcFXur9WkTspExvsaGr0X4y2ZiSzfTvvyZ8 zbY2eBsfbIh/GrXwakgUAiIy1TIao/CdXVwoPLp4E79yf004cchqnrMmmGYIGu+3 8nrrm5EyFmCPnPy1ZesFHSG1x7+6/dinYhAfAsxg5xVIzsUGXdxsmKoSWPhdqhYL 7eZLUYCvLAAIKcrX5nXdslItNFpE+gBDLKgQhZkGRTCqbnSEf1YNI3X5GtfAylk= =/JUf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pgp+signed+E70+SrXPE4Lglf8--