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
Message-Id: 20070723190222.861dc1a9.genone@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better by Alec Warner
1 On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:39:51 -0700
2 "Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > I wish to add a few more fields:
5 >
6 > Effective-Date: Date the mask goes into effect. This means you can
7 > mask stuff in the future.
8 > Expiration-Date: Date the mask ends. This means you can have masks
9 > that expire after a given time.
10
11 No and no. I don't see a point in either of those, or since when is
12 (absolute) time a relevant factor for masking status?
13
14 > If Expiration-Date was mandatory, we could essentially have a system
15 > that cleans out mask files by removing expired masks.
16
17 Please provide use cases where a mask would expire at a given date and
18 not based on the state of the tree (analog for Effective-Date).
19
20 > Another thing I wish to address is the addition of entries in
21 > package.mask at the top of the file. I think this restriction just
22 > makes automation more difficult. I can't just append new entries to
23 > the end of the file, I have to read in the file and figure out by some
24 > hardcoded comment strings where the actaul masks begin, and then
25 > insert text right below the examples. This is horrible. Can we nuke
26 > that convention, why are new entries at the top?
27
28 I think that convention comes from the fact that package.mask also acts
29 as a changelog for itself, and the newest entries are generally the
30 more "interesting" ones.
31
32 Marius
33 --
34 gentoo-project@g.o mailing list

Replies

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