Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Vlastimil Babka <caster@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:08:01
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better by Roy Bamford
Hash: SHA1

Roy Bamford wrote:
> 1. Lets say I'm waiting for KDE 5 and I have ebuilds in my tree masked > with future dates set. I'm so keen to get it, the date arrives and I do > emerge kde-meta > Hopefully, the ebuilds I have are still not keyworded, so nothing nasty > happens. I do emerge --sync and get updated ebuilds and an updated > package.mask with new (later) future dates. No harm done. > What if the packages were already keyworded ? > > 2 and 3 are pretty much the same. > They depend on a fix or package removal happening before the future > date is reached. We all know that fixes take as long as they take. > For removals, the removal process would need to be automated using the > same or an earlier date. > > I do see one way round these complications though. > Force an emerge --sync > of package.mask and the affected ebuilds before implementing any date > released features. After all, future dates represent plans, its as well > to check the plan worked before acting on it.
Too clumsy, just use the date of the local tree snapshot (gets rsynced in some file IIRC, or extract it from CVS for CVS checkouts) instead of local date, to compare with dates in p.mask. Anyway I also can't think of useful and safe uses for the expiration date. But I agree with the rest of the proposal :) - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - iD8DBQFGo4DjtbrAj05h3oQRArYJAJ430WTpT+nNPZC6+HqB2A3o/9Gk/wCgkPhk Fj0O088xeYXk6U9yfqhsTJs= =cJnK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-project@g.o mailing list