1 |
On 7/23/07, Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:39:51 -0700 |
3 |
> "Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > I wish to add a few more fields: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Effective-Date: Date the mask goes into effect. This means you can |
8 |
> > mask stuff in the future. |
9 |
> > Expiration-Date: Date the mask ends. This means you can have masks |
10 |
> > that expire after a given time. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> No and no. I don't see a point in either of those, or since when is |
13 |
> (absolute) time a relevant factor for masking status? |
14 |
> |
15 |
> > If Expiration-Date was mandatory, we could essentially have a system |
16 |
> > that cleans out mask files by removing expired masks. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Please provide use cases where a mask would expire at a given date and |
19 |
> not based on the state of the tree (analog for Effective-Date). |
20 |
|
21 |
The best case is a last-rites mask. Given an Expiration-Date you can |
22 |
alert on masks that are old (by data) as opposed to what we do now, |
23 |
which is guess based on haphazard data in the mask and whether the |
24 |
package is in the tree or not. |
25 |
|
26 |
Security masks are a subset of this and could benefit from an expiration. |
27 |
|
28 |
We could drop the requirement of 'the package mangler expires masks |
29 |
based on expiration' and just use the expiration by parsers so that |
30 |
people can monitor masks and determine if/when stuff should happen. |
31 |
|
32 |
Effective-Date has less of a use case, most people don't forget to |
33 |
mask things (or if they do, it gets fixed 'real quick now'). |
34 |
|
35 |
> |
36 |
> > Another thing I wish to address is the addition of entries in |
37 |
> > package.mask at the top of the file. I think this restriction just |
38 |
> > makes automation more difficult. I can't just append new entries to |
39 |
> > the end of the file, I have to read in the file and figure out by some |
40 |
> > hardcoded comment strings where the actaul masks begin, and then |
41 |
> > insert text right below the examples. This is horrible. Can we nuke |
42 |
> > that convention, why are new entries at the top? |
43 |
> |
44 |
> I think that convention comes from the fact that package.mask also acts |
45 |
> as a changelog for itself, and the newest entries are generally the |
46 |
> more "interesting" ones. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Marius |
49 |
|
50 |
So 'newer' correlates to 'more interesting'? |
51 |
How does that mean 'new entries go at the top'? |
52 |
-- |
53 |
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |