| 1 |
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I love my Gentoo-devs, but what is the train of thought here? |
| 4 |
>> skype-2.2.0.35-r1 was ~amd64 yesterday. It's installed and working |
| 5 |
>> fine. Today 2.2.0.35-r99 is ~amd64, which is perfectly fine, but |
| 6 |
>> they've completely removed -r1 and now I'm required to unmask |
| 7 |
>> emulation packages that only came out today? That doesn't seem quite |
| 8 |
>> right... |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Why did they completely get rid of -r1? That should stick around for a |
| 11 |
>> little while after -r99 becomes ~amd64, shouldn't it? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> - Mark |
| 14 |
<SNIP> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> -r1 had a security problem. You should unmask the emulation packages |
| 17 |
> and continue the update process. Look at the ChangeLog so see what |
| 18 |
> changed. Both versions are ~amd64 so I don't understand your complain |
| 19 |
> about keeping -r1 in the tree for a while. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Markos |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Thanks Markos. That's likely what I'll do, although the alternative |
| 25 |
I'm looking at for now is possibly getting -r1 from an overlay. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I didn't think I was _complaining_. I was just asking what the train |
| 28 |
of thought was that leads them to do this sort of thing. Everything in |
| 29 |
the world has a security problem. We know they are either found or not |
| 30 |
found. Unmasking 8 emulation libraries that have _yesterdays_ date in |
| 31 |
their names, and therefore makes them quite new, may: |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
1) Create more security problems |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
2) Create issues with other programs that use the libraries. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Anyway, thanks for the response. I'll either unmask or use an overlay. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Cheers, |
| 40 |
Mark |
Archives