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: gentoo-project@g.o
From: Robert Buchholz <rbu@g.o>
Subject: Re: Automation: Making package.mask better
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:38:21 +0200
On Sunday, 22. July 2007 08:39, Alec Warner wrote:
> Author:  Who commited the mask.
> Date: When was it masked.
> Reason: 1 or more lines describing a rationale for the masking.
> Packages: one or more lines of text, 1 atom per line, describing
> packages affected by this mask entry.
>
> 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.
>
> If Expiration-Date was mandatory, we could essentially have a system
> that cleans out mask files by removing expired masks.

I like the idea, here's my comments:

1. For backwards compatibility, we could just put all fields into 
comments (as it is done now) except for the masked atoms, like this:

# Author: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
# Date: 05 Feb 2007
# Reason: Masked to security problems, use 1.23-r1 until I fix it
# ...
>=app-admin/ulogd-1.24

The dates usage and parsing could than be added later, while using the 
format and automation itself today.

2. The pro's of using it today would be to mark Last-Rites (just what 
makes me think that discussion led you to the idea?).
I can think of several ways to do this. We could have an 
optional "Removal-Date" field and if it is set, the package is last 
rited

3.  We could also introduce some kind of "Keywords" as in Bugzilla to 
mark certain situations, as UNUSABLE, SECURITY, LASTRITED. Do we need 
that?

4. How do we handle updates to the an entry, esp. the Date and Author 
section?


> 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?

Drop the convention then... or we could add a marker line at the top
"## New entries start here" - Would that make it easier?

Robert
-- 
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list


Replies:
Re: Automation: Making package.mask better
-- Thomas Tuttle
References:
Automation: Making package.mask better
-- Alec Warner
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: Automation: Making package.mask better


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.