Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:18:33
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask by Elfyn McBratney
Elfyn McBratney posted <200504160656.43452@××××××××××.local>, excerpted
below,  on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:56:34 +0100:

> A number of people have suggested putting these updated ebuilds back into > package.mask, or lessening the impact of the upgrade from current stable > apache to the new ~arch apache. So, I would like to solicit advice from the > developer community as to how we can rectify this. > > The way I see it, we have three options: > - package.mask (downgrades for those early adopters)
[snip] As a user that tends to get a bit upset when perfectly working (on my system) packages are package masked, forcing a downgrade, without clear reason, here's my perspective. * Put a clear explanation in the package-mask comment, particularly indicating that it's safe to unmask and continue to use if you already have it installed and working -- IOW, that it's not a security issue causing the masking. Something like, # Masked pending further development and testing. Current working # installations may package.unmask to prevent # forced downgrade. Or, reference a bug number instead of that "pending" language. Again, just clearly indicate the reason for any masking that will force a downgrade, particularly whether it's security related or not, and the consequences of /not/ downgrading, thus giving the user, that is, the local Gentoo system administrator, enough information to make a good decision on whether they can /safely/ package.unmask it and continue to use it, or not. I must say... In general, the Gentoo devs already get high marks for this. =8^) Only once have I had to ask what the force-downgrade masking was about, because all the comment effectively said was "remasking this", something I obviously already knew if I was looking at the comment in the package.mask file. =8^( (Actually, I think that incident had to do with keyword masking, but the point still stands. Clear comment explaining why, and I'm a happy camper <g>; unclear comment, and I'm not, because I've been deprived of the information necessary to effectively carry out /my/ responsibilities as a Gentoo sysadmin.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in -- gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list