| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:18:52 -0700 David Shakaryan <omp@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | I have created a small script to go through entries in package.mask |
| 5 |
> | and list those which are masking non-existent packages or versions. I |
| 6 |
> | then used this list to clean up package.mask. I tried to only remove |
| 7 |
> | versions that were removed and have a newer version in place, along |
| 8 |
> | with packages that were removed, but I accidentally /might/ have |
| 9 |
> | removed other entries, although I doubt it. I kept masks for future |
| 10 |
> | versions in place, as the maintainer of the package might have wanted |
| 11 |
> | to mask it ahead of time. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> So what happens when users have an old, masked package installed that's |
| 14 |
> no longer masked thanks to this change? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Err, exactly nothing? If they didn't unmerge it, they'll continue to |
| 17 |
have it installed as they did before? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Best regards, |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Jakub Moc |
| 25 |
mailto:jakub@g.o |
| 26 |
GPG signature: |
| 27 |
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E |
| 28 |
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
... still no signature ;) |
Archives