Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Marius Mauch <genone@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:04:47
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better by Alec Warner
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).
> 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 -- gentoo-project@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>