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
1 Elfyn McBratney posted <200504160656.43452@××××××××××.local>, excerpted
2 below, on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:56:34 +0100:
4 > A number of people have suggested putting these updated ebuilds back into
5 > package.mask, or lessening the impact of the upgrade from current stable
6 > apache to the new ~arch apache. So, I would like to solicit advice from the
7 > developer community as to how we can rectify this.
8 >
9 > The way I see it, we have three options:
10 > - package.mask (downgrades for those early adopters)
11 [snip]
13 As a user that tends to get a bit upset when perfectly working (on my
14 system) packages are package masked, forcing a downgrade, without clear
15 reason, here's my perspective.
17 * Put a clear explanation in the package-mask comment, particularly
18 indicating that it's safe to unmask and continue to use if you already
19 have it installed and working -- IOW, that it's not a security issue
20 causing the masking. Something like,
22 # Masked pending further development and testing. Current working
23 # installations may package.unmask to prevent # forced downgrade.
25 Or, reference a bug number instead of that "pending" language.
27 Again, just clearly indicate the reason for any masking that will force a
28 downgrade, particularly whether it's security related or not, and the
29 consequences of /not/ downgrading, thus giving the user, that is, the
30 local Gentoo system administrator, enough information to make a good
31 decision on whether they can /safely/ package.unmask it and continue to
32 use it, or not.
34 I must say... In general, the Gentoo devs already get high marks for this.
35 =8^) Only once have I had to ask what the force-downgrade masking was
36 about, because all the comment effectively said was "remasking this",
37 something I obviously already knew if I was looking at the comment in the
38 package.mask file. =8^( (Actually, I think that incident had to do with
39 keyword masking, but the point still stands. Clear comment explaining
40 why, and I'm a happy camper <g>; unclear comment, and I'm not, because
41 I've been deprived of the information necessary to effectively carry out
42 /my/ responsibilities as a Gentoo sysadmin.)
44 --
45 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
46 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
47 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in
51 --
52 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list