[gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-11 Thread Torsten Veller
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote: But if we look on tag of screen-4.0.3 or its release: screen-4.0.3.tar.gz07-Aug-2008 06:30 821K screen-4.0.3.tar.gz.sig07-Aug-2008 06:30 65 *screen-4.0.3 (25 Oct 2006) Part of the famous Software from the future series.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-11 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:11:37 +0100 Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net wrote: Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote: But if we look on tag of screen-4.0.3 or its release: screen-4.0.3.tar.gz07-Aug-2008 06:30 821K screen-4.0.3.tar.gz.sig07-Aug-2008 06:30 65

[gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-09 Thread Duncan
Christian Faulhammer posted on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:13:22 +0100 as excerpted: Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net: 1) Users using ** in their package.keywords file should know enough about what they're doing to use their own package.mask, as well. If they're using ** in the keywords file, they're

[gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-08 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Hi, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net: 1) Users using ** in their package.keywords file should know enough about what they're doing to use their own package.mask, as well. If they're using ** in the keywords file, they're /saying/ they're reading to handle such things, after all, why shouldn't we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-08 Thread Vlastimil Babka
Duncan wrote: In theory that's what those stupid version string thingys are for, but it's s much easier just to forget one! =:^[ Maybe something about this should go in the handbook -- a suggestion that if one is going to use a package.unmask entry, that they copy the package.mask entry

[gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-07 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Hi, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org: * Masking live... Heck no. This is not proper usage. Just use keywords mask. KEYWORDS=. Problem solved and the package.mask is smaller. (Note, in overlays do what ever you want, since it does not polute the main mask from g-x86). True. If we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-07 Thread William Hubbs
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 07:33:12PM +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote: Hi, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org: * Masking live... Heck no. This is not proper usage. Just use keywords mask. KEYWORDS=. Problem solved and the package.mask is smaller. (Note, in overlays do what ever you

[gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-07 Thread Duncan
Christian Faulhammer posted on Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:33:12 +0100 as excerpted: William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org: * Masking live... Heck no. This is not proper usage. Just use keywords mask. KEYWORDS=. Problem solved and the package.mask is smaller. (Note, in overlays do what ever you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-07 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: 2) That won't necessarily stop the bugs from rolling in.  Some devs may get tired of live pkg bugs and package.mask it, thus putting up a double- barrier to the live ebuild.  If users jump BOTH barriers and fall over the

[gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-07 Thread Duncan
Nirbheek Chauhan posted on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:38:56 +0530 as excerpted: We had something interesting happen with policykit. It was masked for a very long time, and so all users of policykit had sys-auth/policykit in p.unmask. Then it was unmasked, but of course who bothers cleaning up their

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies

2009-11-07 Thread Kent Fredric
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.orgwrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: 2) That won't necessarily stop the bugs from rolling in. Some devs may get tired of live pkg bugs and package.mask it, thus putting up a double-