[Exherbo-dev] Changing repo and profile masks

Bernd Steinhauser exherbo at bernd-steinhauser.de
Sun Feb 27 14:13:23 GMT 2011


On 27/02/11 14:00, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:55:32 +0100
> Bernd Steinhauser<exherbo at bernd-steinhauser.de>  wrote:
>> On 27/02/11 13:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Feb
>>> or they can just use no tokens at all, which still means "accept any
>>> kind of mask".
>> If no token is specified, it should mean "accept no mask".
> No, that's not backwards compatible, and it doesn't fit in nicely with
> repositories whose masks don't support tokens or untokened masks in
> repositories which do support tokens.
Isn't that just a configuration issue (we're talking about package_unmask.conf, 
right?)? IMO, Paludis should moan if there is such a mask and tell the user 
about that.
>>> I think the plan is at some point to kill PLATFORMS and move that
>>> into profiles instead. But I've not seen any details on that, so
>>> for now I think it's easier if we carry on treating PLATFORMS and
>>> masks as being entirely independent.
>> The current change is good for sure, but maybe we could already
>> ensure that we don't have to change the whole thing again if we want
>> to get rid of PLATFORMS in its current implementation.
> Whatever replaces PLATFORMS will be based upon whitelisting, not
> blacklisting, so it'll be a different mechanism anyway...
Doesn't that require both whitelisting and blacklisting anyway (at least from a 
user's point of view)?

BTW, are packages grouped in the usual way?
(i.e. (cat/foo1 cat/foo2) [[ ... ]])



More information about the Exherbo-dev mailing list