Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: Marius Mauch <genone@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:55:33
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better by Marius Mauch
On 7/23/07, Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:39:51 -0700 > "Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote: > > > I wish to add a few more fields: > > > > 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. > > No and no. I don't see a point in either of those, or since when is > (absolute) time a relevant factor for masking status? > > > If Expiration-Date was mandatory, we could essentially have a system > > that cleans out mask files by removing expired masks. > > Please provide use cases where a mask would expire at a given date and > not based on the state of the tree (analog for Effective-Date).
The best case is a last-rites mask. Given an Expiration-Date you can alert on masks that are old (by data) as opposed to what we do now, which is guess based on haphazard data in the mask and whether the package is in the tree or not. Security masks are a subset of this and could benefit from an expiration. We could drop the requirement of 'the package mangler expires masks based on expiration' and just use the expiration by parsers so that people can monitor masks and determine if/when stuff should happen. Effective-Date has less of a use case, most people don't forget to mask things (or if they do, it gets fixed 'real quick now').
> > > Another thing I wish to address is the addition of entries in > > package.mask at the top of the file. I think this restriction just > > makes automation more difficult. I can't just append new entries to > > the end of the file, I have to read in the file and figure out by some > > hardcoded comment strings where the actaul masks begin, and then > > insert text right below the examples. This is horrible. Can we nuke > > that convention, why are new entries at the top? > > I think that convention comes from the fact that package.mask also acts > as a changelog for itself, and the newest entries are generally the > more "interesting" ones. > > Marius
So 'newer' correlates to 'more interesting'? How does that mean 'new entries go at the top'? -- gentoo-project@g.o mailing list