| 1 |
Am Montag, 21. Mai 2012, 08:55:25 schrieb Mark Knecht: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> |
| 3 |
wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> I love my Gentoo-devs, but what is the train of thought here? |
| 6 |
> >> skype-2.2.0.35-r1 was ~amd64 yesterday. It's installed and working |
| 7 |
> >> fine. Today 2.2.0.35-r99 is ~amd64, which is perfectly fine, but |
| 8 |
> >> they've completely removed -r1 and now I'm required to unmask |
| 9 |
> >> emulation packages that only came out today? That doesn't seem quite |
| 10 |
> >> right... |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> Why did they completely get rid of -r1? That should stick around for a |
| 13 |
> >> little while after -r99 becomes ~amd64, shouldn't it? |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> - Mark |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> <SNIP> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> > -r1 had a security problem. You should unmask the emulation packages |
| 20 |
> > and continue the update process. Look at the ChangeLog so see what |
| 21 |
> > changed. Both versions are ~amd64 so I don't understand your complain |
| 22 |
> > about keeping -r1 in the tree for a while. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > Markos |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Thanks Markos. That's likely what I'll do, although the alternative |
| 27 |
> I'm looking at for now is possibly getting -r1 from an overlay. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I didn't think I was _complaining_. I was just asking what the train |
| 30 |
> of thought was that leads them to do this sort of thing. Everything in |
| 31 |
> the world has a security problem. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
well, apart from this being not true at all. It is just stupid to keep a known |
| 34 |
BAD version in a TESTING tree. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> We know they are either found or not |
| 37 |
> found. Unmasking 8 emulation libraries that have _yesterdays_ date in |
| 38 |
> their names, and therefore makes them quite new, may: |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
new for their compilation. Not the code inside. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> 1) Create more security problems |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
may, but it fixes a KNOWN problem. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> 2) Create issues with other programs that use the libraries. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
which are.. none? |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> Anyway, thanks for the response. I'll either unmask or use an overlay. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
if you use testing, you have to deal with such kind of situations. Using a |
| 55 |
known broken version is just stupid. |
| 56 |
There isn't a choice between those two. There is only a choice between: use |
| 57 |
unstable or stable. |
| 58 |
And if you use unstable, don't complain about things being fluid. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
#163933 |
Archives