1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Roy Bamford wrote: |
5 |
> 1. Lets say I'm waiting for KDE 5 and I have ebuilds in my tree masked |
6 |
> with future dates set. I'm so keen to get it, the date arrives and I do |
7 |
> emerge kde-meta |
8 |
> Hopefully, the ebuilds I have are still not keyworded, so nothing nasty |
9 |
> happens. I do emerge --sync and get updated ebuilds and an updated |
10 |
> package.mask with new (later) future dates. No harm done. |
11 |
> What if the packages were already keyworded ? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> 2 and 3 are pretty much the same. |
14 |
> They depend on a fix or package removal happening before the future |
15 |
> date is reached. We all know that fixes take as long as they take. |
16 |
> For removals, the removal process would need to be automated using the |
17 |
> same or an earlier date. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> I do see one way round these complications though. |
20 |
> Force an emerge --sync |
21 |
> of package.mask and the affected ebuilds before implementing any date |
22 |
> released features. After all, future dates represent plans, its as well |
23 |
> to check the plan worked before acting on it. |
24 |
|
25 |
Too clumsy, just use the date of the local tree snapshot (gets rsynced |
26 |
in some file IIRC, or extract it from CVS for CVS checkouts) instead of |
27 |
local date, to compare with dates in p.mask. |
28 |
|
29 |
Anyway I also can't think of useful and safe uses for the expiration |
30 |
date. But I agree with the rest of the proposal :) |
31 |
|
32 |
- -- |
33 |
Vlastimil Babka (Caster) |
34 |
Gentoo/Java |
35 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
36 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) |
37 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
38 |
|
39 |
iD8DBQFGo4DjtbrAj05h3oQRArYJAJ430WTpT+nNPZC6+HqB2A3o/9Gk/wCgkPhk |
40 |
Fj0O088xeYXk6U9yfqhsTJs= |
41 |
=cJnK |
42 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
43 |
-- |
44 |
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |