| 1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:00:56 -0700 |
| 3 |
> David Shakaryan <omp@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> It seems like you didn't understand exactly what I did. The masks I |
| 6 |
>> removed are *ONLY* those which are masking a package or version that is |
| 7 |
>> no longer in the tree. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> And what if that was a preventive mask? The assumption of not-in-tree => can-be-removed-from-p.mask isn't valid in all cases. Also there isn't any particular need to "cleanup" package.mask so there is no reason for this to be done without prior notice. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Marius |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Hypothetically speaking, if version 1.4 of a package is in package.mask |
| 14 |
and we are now at version 1.6, with 1.4 removed from the tree, is there |
| 15 |
really a reason why the mask for 1.4 should stay? I don't see why we'll |
| 16 |
re-add an older version later, and if we do, it's not too hard to mask |
| 17 |
it again if the problem which caused it to be masked still prevails. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Feel free to undo any of my changes for which there is a clear reason to |
| 20 |
let the mask stay. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
David Shakaryan |
| 24 |
GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B |
Archives