On Monday 21 July 2008, Aleksey V Lazar wrote:
> Hello.  Would it be reasonable to suggest adding a ~security (or
> something like it) flag to denote packages masked for security
> reasons?

Hi Aleksey,

since entries package.mask only contain free text description as an 
additional information, such a feature would require the package 
manager to decide which entries are security maskings, and which are 
feature maskings. While that could be done using 
restrictions/conventions within the text, I am sure our package manager 
developers would disagree with such a design. A "package.security.mask" 
file might be more appropriate for that.

My question now is, why would you want such a thing? Masked packages all 
have different reasons to be there, and you should decide to use one on 
a case-by-case basis.

Regards,
Robert