1 |
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:39:51 -0700 |
2 |
"Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> I wish to add a few more fields: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Effective-Date: Date the mask goes into effect. This means you can |
7 |
> mask stuff in the future. |
8 |
> Expiration-Date: Date the mask ends. This means you can have masks |
9 |
> that expire after a given time. |
10 |
|
11 |
No and no. I don't see a point in either of those, or since when is |
12 |
(absolute) time a relevant factor for masking status? |
13 |
|
14 |
> If Expiration-Date was mandatory, we could essentially have a system |
15 |
> that cleans out mask files by removing expired masks. |
16 |
|
17 |
Please provide use cases where a mask would expire at a given date and |
18 |
not based on the state of the tree (analog for Effective-Date). |
19 |
|
20 |
> Another thing I wish to address is the addition of entries in |
21 |
> package.mask at the top of the file. I think this restriction just |
22 |
> makes automation more difficult. I can't just append new entries to |
23 |
> the end of the file, I have to read in the file and figure out by some |
24 |
> hardcoded comment strings where the actaul masks begin, and then |
25 |
> insert text right below the examples. This is horrible. Can we nuke |
26 |
> that convention, why are new entries at the top? |
27 |
|
28 |
I think that convention comes from the fact that package.mask also acts |
29 |
as a changelog for itself, and the newest entries are generally the |
30 |
more "interesting" ones. |
31 |
|
32 |
Marius |
33 |
-- |
34 |
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |