| 1 |
Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Tuesday 24 January 2006 14:17, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>I figured it was time for a bit of cleaning... I ended up writing a |
| 7 |
>>really crappy script for stable to do a check of whether package.mask |
| 8 |
>>entries were really referencing anything or not. Luckily Brian was able |
| 9 |
>>to write a much better one for bcportage. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>>So the list of invalid masks is at [1]. |
| 12 |
>>The script source is at [2]. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>>Please have a look and see if any of the packages are yours. Entries in |
| 15 |
>> package.mask should have a corresponding ebuild in the tree somewhere. |
| 16 |
>> I'd like to see the number of entries chopped by a fair margin. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>All of the KDE stuff is the upcoming 3.5.1 release which we are working on in |
| 21 |
>p.mask until the official release. There *are* ebuilds for all this stuff in |
| 22 |
>the tree right now. So that has chopped the number of entries by a fair |
| 23 |
>margin, but for the script to be useful it should be able to detect they have |
| 24 |
>valid ebuilds. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
It may be Brian hadn't cvs up'd lately, I am not sure. On my box I |
| 28 |
don't see any kde-3.5.1 ebuilds for some random items that I plucked out |
| 29 |
of the list (qtsharp fex). Regardless, if it's a preventive mask or |
| 30 |
whatnot I'm not going to make you take it out or anything. The list is |
| 31 |
only meant to help spot old packages, or pkgmoved packages or whatnot. |
| 32 |
If you as the maintainer know the mask is valid, then don't touch it. |
| 33 |
If you as the maintainer know that package is long dead, then remove |
| 34 |
it. Thats basically it. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives