| 1 |
John C. Shimek wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I think the biggest problem, I could be wrong thoug, is that usually |
| 4 |
> when packages get remasked like that and upgrades go backwards, it is |
| 5 |
> a security problem. And even that seems to be uncommon. I have not |
| 6 |
> ever seen one of my packages go backwards but I could have missed one |
| 7 |
> or two. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
In the other direction, the biggest problem is when you explicitely |
| 10 |
unmask a specific version (echo "=dev-db/mysql-5.0.9-alpha ~amd64" >> |
| 11 |
/etc/portage/package.keywords) and then there's a minor upgrade |
| 12 |
(=dev-db/mysql-5.0.9-beta), and the version you unmasked is thrown out. |
| 13 |
Doing a blind -uD will downgrade to the latest stable version in that case. |
| 14 |
Of course, the answer here is to use -p and unmask the new versions |
| 15 |
before proceeding. And you can mask the old ones to guard yourself |
| 16 |
against accidental downgrading. (echo "<dev-db/mysql-5" >> |
| 17 |
/etc/portage/package.mask) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Sebastian Redl |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives