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 6E49D138247 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:52:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1445AE0AC5; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:52:20 +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 30CB9E0AC1 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:52:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CDFD33F27C for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:52:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.823 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.823 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.273, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id auHsUePPxfz8 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:52:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFF8133F23A for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:52:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Vi8O5-0000Nv-NO for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:52:05 +0100 Received: from lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de ([160.45.42.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:52:05 +0100 Received: from vaeth by lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:52:05 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Martin Vaeth Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:51:36 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <52864645.2070506@gentoo.org> <201311161346.30387.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <99B7EF10-7604-41F5-952E-F008E02CE26A@gentoo.org> <20131117202734.20f5a6a6@gentoo.org> 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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-26 (Linux) X-Archives-Salt: 1fca0373-9294-47d0-a008-cb89e4ee692a X-Archives-Hash: e3588bb60bec4128f7e371f97507b148 Michał Górny wrote: > Martin Vaeth napisa=C5=82(a): >> 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 also thought so, first, but unfortunately PMS is here clear in its formulation: "... package.use.stable.mask ... do the same thing [as package.use.mask]. These files, however, act only on packages which are merged due to a stable keyword..." There is no distinction about the location where the permission to install an unstable keyword comes from.