| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 12:24:12PM -0500, Mike Pagano wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 12:14:23PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:11 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 11:21:56AM -0500, Mike Pagano wrote: |
| 5 |
> > >> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 05:47:10PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 6 |
> > >> > All, |
| 7 |
> > >> > |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > If you remove the mask, users will no longer be warned that they are |
| 10 |
> > using a flawed copy of the kernel sources. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Thus, Mike's question about timing. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Exactly. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This should be a different thread then since this wasn't in the list I |
| 18 |
originally posted. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
However, |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
this is considered an invalid package.mask entry since the package that |
| 23 |
was being masked is no longer in the tree [1]. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
This is just something that QA or anyone can clean up as far as I know. |
| 26 |
We don't worry about masking packages that no longer exist in the tree. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
William |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
[1] http://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/invalid-mask.txt |
Archives