| 1 |
misfit[1004]:~% sudo emerge -uva nethack |
| 2 |
Password: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Calculating dependencies | |
| 7 |
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "games-roguelike/nethack" have been |
| 8 |
masked. |
| 9 |
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your |
| 10 |
request: |
| 11 |
- games-roguelike/nethack-3.4.3-r1 (masked by: package.mask) |
| 12 |
/usr/portage/profiles/package.mask: |
| 13 |
# Tavis Ormandy <taviso@g.o> (21 Mar 2006) |
| 14 |
# masked pending unresolved security issues #125902 |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or |
| 18 |
refer to the Gentoo Handbook. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
misfit[1005]:~% |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:42 AM, Robert Buchholz <rbu@g.o> wrote: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> On Monday 21 July 2008, Aleksey V Lazar wrote: |
| 28 |
> > Hello. Would it be reasonable to suggest adding a ~security (or |
| 29 |
> > something like it) flag to denote packages masked for security |
| 30 |
> > reasons? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Hi Aleksey, |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> since entries package.mask only contain free text description as an |
| 35 |
> additional information, such a feature would require the package |
| 36 |
> manager to decide which entries are security maskings, and which are |
| 37 |
> feature maskings. While that could be done using |
| 38 |
> restrictions/conventions within the text, I am sure our package manager |
| 39 |
> developers would disagree with such a design. A "package.security.mask" |
| 40 |
> file might be more appropriate for that. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> My question now is, why would you want such a thing? Masked packages all |
| 43 |
> have different reasons to be there, and you should decide to use one on |
| 44 |
> a case-by-case basis. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Regards, |
| 47 |
> Robert |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> |
Archives