| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Torsten Veller wrote: |
| 5 |
> Some time ago (31 Oct 2008) I renamed |
| 6 |
> perl-core/File-Spec-3.2701 to perl-core/File-Spec-3.27.01 |
| 7 |
> by adding the new file and removing the other. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I expected portage to do an downgrade. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> It didn't. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I realised it when i got this bug <https://bugs.gentoo.org/248178> |
| 14 |
> and after joining #-portage I add a mask for a non-existing package to |
| 15 |
> package.mask. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Today I was CC'ed to https://bugs.gentoo.org/105016 because "package.mask |
| 18 |
> contains invalid entries". |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> In the meantime another bug was filed about portage "doesn't attempt to |
| 21 |
> downgrade packages on keyword changes..." <https://bugs.gentoo.org/252167> |
| 22 |
> with a fix. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I am confused. Will portage warn about the downgrade now and forever? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Yes, my intention is for the masks to be unnecessary, because after |
| 28 |
thinking about it I decided that it's not desirable to maintain |
| 29 |
package.mask entries for packages such as these. Since bug 252167 |
| 30 |
has been fixed, newer versions of portage perform automatic |
| 31 |
downgrades like older versions of portage did. |
| 32 |
- -- |
| 33 |
Thanks, |
| 34 |
Zac |
| 35 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 36 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
iEYEARECAAYFAklZK+YACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOYegCgvjU4KSjBE4/Lyr0LBvf+lcfY |
| 39 |
624AoJoBzlpVGaKGOHr3C2gAtD9jUFfr |
| 40 |
=Z1t7 |
| 41 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives