Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Robert Buchholz <rbu@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Cc: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:38:53
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better by Alec Warner
On Sunday, 22. July 2007 08:39, Alec Warner wrote:
> Author: Who commited the mask. > Date: When was it masked. > Reason: 1 or more lines describing a rationale for the masking. > Packages: one or more lines of text, 1 atom per line, describing > packages affected by this mask entry. > > 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. > > If Expiration-Date was mandatory, we could essentially have a system > that cleans out mask files by removing expired masks.
I like the idea, here's my comments: 1. For backwards compatibility, we could just put all fields into comments (as it is done now) except for the masked atoms, like this: # Author: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> # Date: 05 Feb 2007 # Reason: Masked to security problems, use 1.23-r1 until I fix it # ...
The dates usage and parsing could than be added later, while using the format and automation itself today. 2. The pro's of using it today would be to mark Last-Rites (just what makes me think that discussion led you to the idea?). I can think of several ways to do this. We could have an optional "Removal-Date" field and if it is set, the package is last rited 3. We could also introduce some kind of "Keywords" as in Bugzilla to mark certain situations, as UNUSABLE, SECURITY, LASTRITED. Do we need that? 4. How do we handle updates to the an entry, esp. the Date and Author section?
> 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?
Drop the convention then... or we could add a marker line at the top "## New entries start here" - Would that make it easier? Robert -- gentoo-project@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better Thomas Tuttle <gentoo@×××××××.net>