| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:56:12PM -0400, mike wrote: |
| 2 |
> if a new version was unmasked and later found to be |
| 3 |
> REALLY broken or a huge security hole or something, |
| 4 |
> then this makes sense. |
| 5 |
> the idea is that, if the package is masked, then its not |
| 6 |
> supposed to be on a normal system (its still being tested |
| 7 |
> and/or its known to be bad) |
| 8 |
> -mike |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Ok, i was just curious. I checked the notes and it looked like it was |
| 12 |
just masked because of possible compilation problems, which i didn't |
| 13 |
have. I just seems odd that it would try to downgrade, but i guess |
| 14 |
the mask makes portage totally disregard what is present and would |
| 15 |
assume the package wasn't installed (or some other sort of logic since |
| 16 |
grub is also a system requirement). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
burton |
Archives