| 1 |
Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 2 |
> David Shakaryan napsal(a): |
| 3 |
>> Alec Warner wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): |
| 6 |
>>>>> So what happens when users have an old, masked package installed that's |
| 7 |
>>>>> no longer masked thanks to this change? |
| 8 |
>>>> Err, exactly nothing? If they didn't unmerge it, they'll continue to |
| 9 |
>>>> have it installed as they did before? |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>> For things like security packages; it is troublesome. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> 1.x has a sec vuln but 2.x fixes it; upstream isn't willing to backport |
| 14 |
>>> and both stay in the tree. So we mask 1.x for sec reasons. |
| 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 |
It's good, chill ;) |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives