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: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@...>
Subject: Re: Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:18:08 -0700
Elfyn McBratney posted <200504160656.43452@...>, excerpted
below,  on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:56:34 +0100:

> A number of people have suggested putting these updated ebuilds back into 
> package.mask, or lessening the impact of the upgrade from current stable 
> apache to the new ~arch apache.  So, I would like to solicit advice from the 
> developer community as to how we can rectify this.
> 
> The way I see it, we have three options:
>  - package.mask (downgrades for those early adopters)
[snip]

As a user that tends to get a bit upset when perfectly working (on my
system) packages are package masked, forcing a downgrade, without clear
reason, here's my perspective.

*  Put a clear explanation in the package-mask comment, particularly
indicating that it's safe to unmask and continue to use if you already
have it installed and working -- IOW, that it's not a security issue
causing the masking. Something like,

# Masked pending further development and testing.  Current working
# installations may package.unmask to prevent # forced downgrade.

Or, reference a bug number instead of that "pending" language.

Again, just clearly indicate the reason for any masking that will force a
downgrade, particularly whether it's security related or not, and the
consequences of /not/ downgrading, thus giving the user, that is, the
local Gentoo system administrator, enough information to make a good
decision on whether they can /safely/ package.unmask it and continue to
use it, or not.

I must say... In general, the Gentoo devs already get high marks for this.
=8^) Only once have I had to ask what the force-downgrade masking was
about, because all the comment effectively said was "remasking this",
something I obviously already knew if I was looking at the comment in the
package.mask file. =8^(  (Actually, I think that incident had to do with
keyword masking, but the point still stands.  Clear comment explaining
why, and I'm a happy camper <g>; unclear comment, and I'm not, because
I've been deprived of the information necessary to effectively carry out
/my/ responsibilities as a Gentoo sysadmin.)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

References:
Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask
-- Elfyn McBratney
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask
Next by thread:
Re: Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask
Previous by date:
Re: Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask
Next by date:
New "virtual/jabber-server"


Updated Mar 01, 2010

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

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