Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: David Shakaryan <omp@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:30:27
Message-Id: 46A30780.8050306@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better by Alec Warner
Alec Warner wrote:
> Effective-Date: Date the mask goes into effect. This means you can > mask stuff in the future. > Expiration-Date: Date the mask ends. This means you can have masks > that expire after a given time.
While I do not see a problem with Effective-Date, I do not think Expiration-Date is too good of an idea as it would be quite easy for it to backfire and have a negative effect. For example, someone might decide to remove a package from the tree and mask it with an expiration date, but forget to remove the package before the mask expires. Small, careless mistakes like these may lead to much larger problems. If this is at all implemented, it must be made *clear* that this should only be used for certain scenarios where it can not become a problem, such as when masking a package with an expiration date of when the package is scheduled to hit the official mirrors. Even then, it can become somewhat of a problem if there is a gap between when the packages should hit the mirrors and when they actually do, as it would result in 404 errors. While automation of this may lead to things being *slightly* simpler and quicker, it may also lead to problems in the future. It would be much more fool-proof to manually remove masks than to have a feature such as this. -- David Shakaryan -- gentoo-project@g.o mailing list