Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <flameeyes@g.o>
Subject: Profile masking and profiles package.mask
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:40:07 +0200
This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1].

The bug points to a behaviour change in handling of the profiles file, that, 
in my opinion at least, needs to be discussed, as there are profiles relying 
on the old behaviour (Gentoo/FreeBSD's to state some).

For what I can tell, the current behaviour has the advantage of providing a 
different masking reason for packages that are *needed to some version* for 
the profile to be complete, and for packages that are know not to work on a 
profile.

Example: Gentoo/FreeBSD relies on profiles masking for sys-freebsd/freebsd-* 
packages, as you should *not* use freebsd-lib 6.2 on the 6.1 profile, for 
instance; AMD64 no-multilib profiles use package.mask to mask packages that 
are known to be broken on that profile.

In case of Gentoo/FreeBSD, it also means to have 3x entries for forcing 
versions of the packages on users.

Another reason I'd see for retain the current behaviour is that users are 
known to unmask stuff via package.unmask to try "might-be-broken" versions. 
Considering that -* masking is deprecated, this means that if 2.4 profiles 
released a new version of linux-headers with some experimental support (okay, 
unlikely, but let's say it happens), it should go in package.mask.. user put 
linux-headers in package.unmask without a version (which is usually correct, 
as you might want to unmask newer revisions too), but find himself with 
linux-headers 2.6 unmasked.

I cannot find myself any reason for such a behaviour change, but I'm open to 
be proven wrong.


*Important: do NOT use this thread for considerations on QA behaviour, this is 
NOT what this post is thought for.*


[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149508
-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE
Attachment:
pgpqSn9TZp9yv.pgp (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: Profile masking and profiles package.mask
-- Jason Stubbs
Re: Profile masking and profiles package.mask
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: Profile masking and profiles package.mask
-- Marius Mauch
Re: Profile masking and profiles package.mask
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Last rites: tuxracer/tuxracer-demo
Next by thread:
Re: Profile masking and profiles package.mask
Previous by date:
Re: Last rites: tuxracer/tuxracer-demo
Next by date:
Re: RFC: Last rites for $package ...


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.