| 1 |
Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> Effective-Date: Date the mask goes into effect. This means you can |
| 3 |
> mask stuff in the future. |
| 4 |
> Expiration-Date: Date the mask ends. This means you can have masks |
| 5 |
> that expire after a given time. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
While I do not see a problem with Effective-Date, I do not think |
| 8 |
Expiration-Date is too good of an idea as it would be quite easy for it |
| 9 |
to backfire and have a negative effect. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
For example, someone might decide to remove a package from the tree and |
| 12 |
mask it with an expiration date, but forget to remove the package before |
| 13 |
the mask expires. Small, careless mistakes like these may lead to much |
| 14 |
larger problems. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If this is at all implemented, it must be made *clear* that this should |
| 17 |
only be used for certain scenarios where it can not become a problem, |
| 18 |
such as when masking a package with an expiration date of when the |
| 19 |
package is scheduled to hit the official mirrors. Even then, it can |
| 20 |
become somewhat of a problem if there is a gap between when the packages |
| 21 |
should hit the mirrors and when they actually do, as it would result in |
| 22 |
404 errors. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
While automation of this may lead to things being *slightly* simpler and |
| 25 |
quicker, it may also lead to problems in the future. It would be much |
| 26 |
more fool-proof to manually remove masks than to have a feature such as |
| 27 |
this. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
David Shakaryan |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |
Archives