| 1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:17:24 -0500 |
| 4 |
>Alec Warner <warnera6@×××××××.edu> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 9 |
>>Hash: SHA1 |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>>I figured it was time for a bit of cleaning... I ended up writing a |
| 12 |
>>really crappy script for stable to do a check of whether package.mask |
| 13 |
>>entries were really referencing anything or not. Luckily Brian was |
| 14 |
>>able to write a much better one for bcportage. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>Why are people so obsessed with cleaning package.mask all the time? |
| 19 |
>Sure makes sense to remove three year old unused entries from time to |
| 20 |
>time, but not everything that isn't actively used is invalid |
| 21 |
>automatically (quite sure that kde-3.5.1 stuff is a preventive mask |
| 22 |
>for example). |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
>Marius |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
I was attempting to be helpful and filter out valid packages from the |
| 29 |
list. I could have been an ass and been like "Yo I think package.mask |
| 30 |
is bloated go clean it" and not given a list at all, but that is not |
| 31 |
very useful. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I never said ( or meant for ) everything in that list to be cleaned, and |
| 34 |
perhaps I should have added a "use your own descretion" deal. The goal |
| 35 |
was to have a list that someone can quickly glance over and be like "hmm |
| 36 |
I maintain one or two of those lets check it out". |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives