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).

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