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-project
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-project: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: "Marius Mauch" <genone@g.o>
From: "Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o>
Subject: Re: Automation: Making package.mask better
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:55:15 -0700
On 7/23/07, Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:39:51 -0700
> "Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote:
>
> > I wish to add a few more fields:
> >
> > Effective-Date: Date the mask goes into effect.  This means you can
> > mask stuff in the future.
> > Expiration-Date: Date the mask ends.  This means you can have masks
> > that expire after a given time.
>
> No and no. I don't see a point in either of those, or since when is
> (absolute) time a relevant factor for masking status?
>
> > If Expiration-Date was mandatory, we could essentially have a system
> > that cleans out mask files by removing expired masks.
>
> Please provide use cases where a mask would expire at a given date and
> not based on the state of the tree (analog for Effective-Date).

The best case is a last-rites mask.  Given an Expiration-Date you can
alert on masks that are old (by data) as opposed to what we do now,
which is guess based on haphazard data in the mask and whether the
package is in the tree or not.

Security masks are a subset of this and could benefit from an expiration.

We could drop the requirement of 'the package mangler expires masks
based on expiration' and just use the expiration by parsers so that
people can monitor masks and determine if/when stuff should happen.

Effective-Date has less of a use case, most people don't forget to
mask things (or if they do, it gets fixed 'real quick now').

>
> > Another thing I wish to address is the addition of entries in
> > package.mask at the top of the file.  I think this restriction just
> > makes automation more difficult.  I can't just append new entries to
> > the end of the file, I have to read in the file and figure out by some
> > hardcoded comment strings where the actaul masks begin, and then
> > insert text right below the examples.  This is horrible.  Can we nuke
> > that convention, why are new entries at the top?
>
> I think that convention comes from the fact that package.mask also acts
> as a changelog for itself, and the newest entries are generally the
> more "interesting" ones.
>
> Marius

So 'newer' correlates to 'more interesting'?
How does that mean 'new entries go at the top'?
-- 
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list


References:
Automation: Making package.mask better
-- Alec Warner
Re: Automation: Making package.mask better
-- Marius Mauch
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-project: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Automation: Making package.mask better
Next by thread:
Re: Automation: Making package.mask better
Previous by date:
Re: Automation: Making package.mask better
Next by date:
Re: Re: Improving developer/user communication


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-project mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

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