Hi Guys,

Attaching.  It seems for some reason if I inline the patches they don't 
come through.  If I mail to myself only it works just fine.


Kind Regards,
Jaco Kroon
C.E.O.

*T:* +27 (0)12 021 0000 | *F:* +27 86 648 8561 | *E:* jaco@iewc.co.za
*W:* iewc.co.za <http://www.iewc.co.za/> | *A:* Unit 201, Building 2B, 
Sunwood Park, Queen's Crescent Lynnwood, Pretoria


	

Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/Interexcel/> Twitter 
<https://twitter.com/Interexcel/> Google+ 
<https://plus.google.com/+InterexcelCoZaPTA/posts> LinkedIn 
<http://www.linkedin.com/com/images/ico-linkedin.jpg>

<http://www.iewc.co.za/> <http://www.uls.co.za/>

This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer: 
View Disclaimer <http://www.iewc.co.za/email-disclaimer/>

On 2019/08/04 18:22, Jaco Kroon wrote:
> Hi Michał,
>
> On 2019/08/02 19:06, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 12:24 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> On 8/2/19 11:58 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>> Given that overlays won't do proper assignment, the numbers they 
>>>> choose
>>>> may collide with numbers used in ::gentoo.  Forcing explicit 
>>>> assignment
>>>> from dynamic range is cleaner in that regard.
>>>>
>>> I think it would be cleanest to leave the hacks in the overlay, and set
>>> the desired ID to either 999 or a random number like floppym suggested.
>>> The meaning of RANDOM is even more clear than "-1", and doesn't require
>>> us to add both the code that's dead-on-arrival and the CI check to
>>> ensure that it stays that way. But you're the one who's maintaining it
>>> now so I won't argue.
>>>
>> I suppose setting it to 999 would also serve the purpose.  Jaco, do you
>> agree?
>>
> No objections.
>
> 999 I think is probably as good a reserved "don't care" number as any, 
> since really the first dynamic allocation will already use that.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Jaco
>
>