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 80E62138247 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:36:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B8CAE0B18; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:36:50 +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 60868E0980 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:36:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [124.78.108.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04EDE33F228; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:36:47 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52855F08.9070800@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:38:48 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130426 Thunderbird/17.0.5 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 To: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= CC: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask References: <20131113151012.04145837@gentoo.org> <5283948F.1000409@gentoo.org> <52841023.9010208@gentoo.org> <20131114061328.09136f6f@gentoo.org> <5284BC18.5000702@gentoo.org> <20131114185109.38e8e645@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20131114185109.38e8e645@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: e60f8731-041a-4d33-a678-ce08b67051f1 X-Archives-Hash: 2b31f6b567f6d01d8fb6e5a733e83175 On 11/15/2013 01:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> So tell me, what you exactly want or need? Or is it just bare >>> complaining for the sake of complaining? >> >> Well, you accidentally cut out all references to TommyD's work again. >> Almost as if you don't even want to discuss a working proper solution >> that just doesn't have the ego hammering it in ... > > 'Proper' is the keyword. The solution you mention has many issues that > I listed more than once, and is far from unobtrusive, clear > or explicit. It's supposedly working, yes, but it is nowhere near > production-ready. But at least the maintainer followed the protocol and did ask for feedback, did not just hammer it into the main tree etc. (Said maintainer was told to properly document AND DICSUSS it, or else ... one wonders why there's so much divergence between these two attempts)