| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 1:11 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 12:24:12PM -0500, Mike Pagano wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 12:14:23PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:11 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 11:21:56AM -0500, Mike Pagano wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > >> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 05:47:10PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > >> > All, |
| 8 |
>> > >> > |
| 9 |
>> > |
| 10 |
>> > If you remove the mask, users will no longer be warned that they are |
| 11 |
>> > using a flawed copy of the kernel sources. |
| 12 |
>> > |
| 13 |
>> > Thus, Mike's question about timing. |
| 14 |
>> > |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Exactly. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This should be a different thread then since this wasn't in the list I |
| 19 |
> originally posted. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> However, |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> this is considered an invalid package.mask entry since the package that |
| 24 |
> was being masked is no longer in the tree [1]. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Regardless of what repoman says, the mask entry is still useful. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The repoman warning serves as a nice reminder, but please don't treat |
| 29 |
it as policy. |
Archives