| 1 |
David Shakaryan napsal(a): |
| 2 |
> Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): |
| 5 |
>>>> So what happens when users have an old, masked package installed that's |
| 6 |
>>>> no longer masked thanks to this change? |
| 7 |
>>> Err, exactly nothing? If they didn't unmerge it, they'll continue to |
| 8 |
>>> have it installed as they did before? |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> For things like security packages; it is troublesome. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> 1.x has a sec vuln but 2.x fixes it; upstream isn't willing to backport |
| 13 |
>> and both stay in the tree. So we mask 1.x for sec reasons. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> It seems like you didn't understand exactly what I did. The masks I |
| 16 |
> removed are *ONLY* those which are masking a package or version that is |
| 17 |
> no longer in the tree. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I also fail to see the problem. I checked and none of the "unmasked" |
| 20 |
versions/ebuilds is actually in the tree. Where's the security issue |
| 21 |
here? Do we need a dumspace for non-existant stuff in package.mask? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Jakub Moc |
| 28 |
mailto:jakub@g.o |
| 29 |
GPG signature: |
| 30 |
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E |
| 31 |
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
... still no signature ;) |
Archives