Alec Warner wrote: > Jakub Moc wrote: >> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): >>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:18:52 -0700 David Shakaryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> | I have created a small script to go through entries in package.mask >>> | and list those which are masking non-existent packages or versions. I >>> | then used this list to clean up package.mask. I tried to only remove >>> | versions that were removed and have a newer version in place, along >>> | with packages that were removed, but I accidentally /might/ have >>> | removed other entries, although I doubt it. I kept masks for future >>> | versions in place, as the maintainer of the package might have wanted >>> | to mask it ahead of time. >>> >>> So what happens when users have an old, masked package installed that's >>> no longer masked thanks to this change? >> >> Err, exactly nothing? If they didn't unmerge it, they'll continue to >> have it installed as they did before? >> >> >> > > For things like security packages; it is troublesome. > > 1.x has a sec vuln but 2.x fixes it; upstream isn't willing to backport > and both stay in the tree. So we mask 1.x for sec reasons.
It seems like you didn't understand exactly what I did. The masks I removed are *ONLY* those which are masking a package or version that is no longer in the tree. - If 2.x and 1.x are both in the tree, and one of them is masked, I didn't touch the mask. - If only 2.x is in the tree, and 1.x is masked, then I removed the mask as it is quite useless. - If only 1.x is in the tree, and 2.x is masked, I let the mask stay in case the developer masked it ahead of time. Hope that clears it up. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
