| 1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>If not, i *personally* could go slowly removing the entries, along |
| 4 |
>>with other people willing to help, or any other _better_ suggestion |
| 5 |
>>to deal with this? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>Don't do this without explicitly checking with the maintainer for a |
| 10 |
>package (if existant). Generally redundant entries in package.mask |
| 11 |
>don't hurt, so if it's not absolutely clear that the entry is not |
| 12 |
>needed anymore keep it. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Hmm.. I fail to see why package.mask shouldn't be cleaned without |
| 18 |
everyone's consent. |
| 19 |
Assuming the script is correct, why would you contact the maintainer of |
| 20 |
package foe when the oldest version in the current tree is bigger than |
| 21 |
the masked one? |
Archives