| 1 |
On 29.1.2022 19.51, Florian Schmaus wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 25/01/2022 07.49, Joonas Niilola wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 24.1.2022 20.37, Florian Schmaus wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Hi Joonas, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>>> I think it is time to unmask the currently masked Bitcoin versions. The |
| 8 |
>>> mask was added in Juli of 2021 [1], with the mask's commit message |
| 9 |
>>> indicating that unmasking is planned for November 2021. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> I doubt that the mask was ever needed in the first place, as it was |
| 12 |
>>> intended to prevent automated updates of Bitcoin in Gentoo. However, |
| 13 |
>>> Gentoo has no unattended upgrade mechanism. Instead, the user explicitly |
| 14 |
>>> triggers all updates. |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> As this has already caused a little bit of friction, I'd like to get a |
| 17 |
>>> feeling of the community's view on that. |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> - Flow |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> 1: |
| 22 |
>>> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=d0bbc4dcc33927cbf0ca27a054c430f6866ed72e |
| 23 |
>>> |
| 24 |
>>> |
| 25 |
>>> |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> Publishing a news item 2-4 weeks prior wouldn't cost much for us, I feel |
| 28 |
>> like just to make sure it'd be the right thing to do. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I am skeptical that a news item would be the right thing to do |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> First, I doubt that the package mask was needed, as I already wrote. |
| 33 |
> Hence unmasking the package is nothing that the users need to be |
| 34 |
> notified about. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Secondly, we never did a news item for Bitcoin in the past, even on |
| 37 |
> consensus changes. So I want to prevent creating a precedent that puts |
| 38 |
> us in a position where people expect us to do one for every Bitcoin |
| 39 |
> protocol consensus change. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Finally, the news item would state the obvious: Newer software versions |
| 42 |
> may include changes that you, as a user, may want to review before |
| 43 |
> upgrading. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> That said, I wouldn't object if someone published one. Please let me |
| 46 |
> know if you plan to publish one. Otherwise, I would unmask Bitcoin in |
| 47 |
> one week since no fundamental objections have been raised so far. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> - Flow |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Maybe I'm overthinking it due to all the attention bitcoin has received |
| 56 |
lately in Gentoo. But yeah, we haven't received any comments or bugs |
| 57 |
about the mask so I guess it's fine to remove it finally. I still kind |
| 58 |
of do think a news item wouldn't be the "wrong thing to do" either, but |
| 59 |
don't wish to prolong this process any further. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- juippis |
Archives