Re: [gentoo-dev] Best practices for package.mask removals

[Vlastimil Babka]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 28 January 2008, Ryan Hill wrote:
>> In your package.mask entry, it would help to have the following info:
>
> it would help too if you add a comment like this to the top of the mask file
> -mike

I've did it instead:

Index: package.mask
===================================================================
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask,v
retrieving revision 1.8234
diff -u -B -r1.8234 package.mask
--- package.mask        3 Feb 2008 10:28:21 -0000       1.8234
+++ package.mask        3 Feb 2008 13:06:48 -0000
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
  # When you add an entry to this file, add your name, the date, and an
  # explanation of why something is getting masked
  #
-# NOTE: Please add your entry at the top!
+# NOTE: Please add your entry at the top (below the examples)!
  #

  ##
@@ -21,6 +21,25 @@
  ##   End example
  ##

+## Best last rites (removal) practices, as suggested by
+## Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
+##
+## Include the following info:
+## a) reason for masking
+## b) bug # for the removal (and yes you should have one)
+## c) date of removal (either the date or "in x days")
+## d) the word "removal"
+##
+## Example
+##
+# Dev Elepor <noname@g.o> (25 Jan 2012)
+# Masked for removal in 30 days.  Doesn't work
+# with new libfoo. Upstream dead, gtk-1, smells
+# funny. (bug #987654)
+#app-misc/some-package
+##
+## End example, put the real deal below.
+
  # Benedikt Böhm <hollow@g.o> (03 Feb 2008)
  # Masked for removal in 30 days wrt #208584
  # Does not use webapp/depend.apache eclass correctly