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
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
|
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.
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
David Shakaryan napsal(a):
Alec Warner wrote:
Jakub Moc wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
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
Jakub Moc wrote:
David Shakaryan napsal(a):
Alec Warner wrote:
Jakub Moc wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
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
On Sunday 22 October 2006 20:50, Alec Warner wrote:
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.
He said he unmasked things that aren't in the tree anymore.
Alec Warner wrote:
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
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 09:08:18PM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
I also fail to see the problem. I checked and none of the unmasked
versions/ebuilds is actually in the tree. Where's the security issue
here? Do we need a dumspace for non-existant stuff in package.mask?
It's important to yell at the
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:00:56 -0700
David Shakaryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems like you didn't understand exactly what I did. The masks I
removed are *ONLY* those which are masking a package or version that is
no longer in the tree.
And what if that was a preventive mask? The assumption
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:00:56 -0700
David Shakaryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems like you didn't understand exactly what I did. The masks I
removed are *ONLY* those which are masking a package or version that is
no longer in the tree.
And what if that was a
On Sunday 22 October 2006 16:17, David Shakaryan wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if version 1.4 of a package is in package.mask
and we are now at version 1.6, with 1.4 removed from the tree, is there
really a reason why the mask for 1.4 should stay?
no, punt it ... if people want such a
12 matches
Mail list logo
