| 1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:26:03 +0200 |
| 4 |
>Alin Nastac <mrness@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>>Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>>>>If not, i *personally* could go slowly removing the entries, along |
| 13 |
>>>>with other people willing to help, or any other _better_ suggestion |
| 14 |
>>>>to deal with this? |
| 15 |
>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> |
| 17 |
>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>> |
| 19 |
>>>Don't do this without explicitly checking with the maintainer for a |
| 20 |
>>>package (if existant). Generally redundant entries in package.mask |
| 21 |
>>>don't hurt, so if it's not absolutely clear that the entry is not |
| 22 |
>>>needed anymore keep it. |
| 23 |
>>> |
| 24 |
>>> |
| 25 |
>>> |
| 26 |
>>> |
| 27 |
>>> |
| 28 |
>>Hmm.. I fail to see why package.mask shouldn't be cleaned without |
| 29 |
>>everyone's consent. |
| 30 |
>>Assuming the script is correct, why would you contact the maintainer |
| 31 |
>>of package foe when the oldest version in the current tree is bigger |
| 32 |
>>than the masked one? |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
>Because there are more scenarios than the one you see. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
>Marius |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
That's precisely why i m asking for every dev taking care of |
| 43 |
their own scenarios *if possible*. |
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives