| 1 |
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:26:03 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alin Nastac <mrness@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> >>If not, i *personally* could go slowly removing the entries, along |
| 7 |
> >>with other people willing to help, or any other _better_ suggestion |
| 8 |
> >>to deal with this? |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> >Don't do this without explicitly checking with the maintainer for a |
| 13 |
> >package (if existant). Generally redundant entries in package.mask |
| 14 |
> >don't hurt, so if it's not absolutely clear that the entry is not |
| 15 |
> >needed anymore keep it. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Hmm.. I fail to see why package.mask shouldn't be cleaned without |
| 21 |
> everyone's consent. |
| 22 |
> Assuming the script is correct, why would you contact the maintainer |
| 23 |
> of package foe when the oldest version in the current tree is bigger |
| 24 |
> than the masked one? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Because there are more scenarios than the one you see. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Marius |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 34 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives