| 1 |
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 12:11:04 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 12:24:12PM -0500, Mike Pagano wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 12:14:23PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > If you remove the mask, users will no longer be warned that they are |
| 5 |
> > > using a flawed copy of the kernel sources. |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > Thus, Mike's question about timing. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Exactly. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> This should be a different thread then since this wasn't in the list I |
| 13 |
> originally posted. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> However, |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> this is considered an invalid package.mask entry since the package that |
| 18 |
> was being masked is no longer in the tree [1]. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> This is just something that QA or anyone can clean up as far as I know. |
| 21 |
> We don't worry about masking packages that no longer exist in the tree. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> William |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> [1] http://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/invalid-mask.txt |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Probably this policy should be changed. It is a common (yet not |
| 28 |
enfroced) rule to support at least one year old setups. Thus masks |
| 29 |
should remain at least one year after package (or affected version |
| 30 |
(s)) was removed from tree. People can't emerge world daily. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
IMO it will hurt no-one to retain that list forever, maybe put it |
| 33 |
to something like package.mask.obsolete and update PMS to support |
| 34 |
it. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Best regards, |
| 37 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives