Jakub Moc wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:18:52 -0700 David Shakaryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I have created a small script to go through entries in package.mask
| and list those which are masking non-existent packages or versions. I
| then used this list to clean up package.mask. I tried to only remove
| versions that were removed and have a newer version in place, along
| with packages that were removed, but I accidentally /might/ have
| removed other entries, although I doubt it. I kept masks for future
| versions in place, as the maintainer of the package might have wanted
| to mask it ahead of time.
So what happens when users have an old, masked package installed that's
no longer masked thanks to this change?
Err, exactly nothing? If they didn't unmerge it, they'll continue to
have it installed as they did before?
For things like security packages; it is troublesome.
1.x has a sec vuln but 2.x fixes it; upstream isn't willing to backport
and both stay in the tree. So we mask 1.x for sec reasons.
Except it may have been unmasked by this script.
So to Omp: please don't do this again with no warning ;p
If you want a bunch of changes, at least mail the list or file a bug
about it (I prefer the former, but some don't). Sometimes the masks are
there for reasons unknown to you as the cleanup guy. It helps to give
people some time to check over the list of changes.
I don't think anyone is in a hurry to get pmask squeaky clean, and I'd
rather have a solid list of cleanup canidates than a broken tree.
It would be like me touching base/ without e-mailing the list,
completely uncool ;)
-Alec Warner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[email protected] mailing list
