<div dir="ltr">misfit[1004]:~% sudo emerge -uva nethack<br>Password:<br><br>These are the packages that would be merged, in order:<br><br>Calculating dependencies |<br>!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy &quot;games-roguelike/nethack&quot; have been masked.<br>
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request:<br>- games-roguelike/nethack-3.4.3-r1 (masked by: package.mask)<br>/usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:<br># Tavis Ormandy &lt;<a href="mailto:taviso@g.o">taviso@g.o</a>&gt; (21 Mar 2006)<br>
# masked pending unresolved security issues #125902<br><br><br>For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or<br>refer to the Gentoo Handbook.<br><br>misfit[1005]:~%<br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:42 AM, Robert Buchholz &lt;<a href="mailto:rbu@g.o">rbu@g.o</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Monday 21 July 2008, Aleksey V Lazar wrote:<br>
&gt; Hello. &nbsp;Would it be reasonable to suggest adding a ~security (or<br>
&gt; something like it) flag to denote packages masked for security<br>
&gt; reasons?<br>
<br>
</div>Hi Aleksey,<br>
<br>
since entries package.mask only contain free text description as an<br>
additional information, such a feature would require the package<br>
manager to decide which entries are security maskings, and which are<br>
feature maskings. While that could be done using<br>
restrictions/conventions within the text, I am sure our package manager<br>
developers would disagree with such a design. A &quot;package.security.mask&quot;<br>
file might be more appropriate for that.<br>
<br>
My question now is, why would you want such a thing? Masked packages all<br>
have different reasons to be there, and you should decide to use one on<br>
a case-by-case basis.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<font color="#888888">Robert<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>