On Monday 21 July 2008, Aleksey V Lazar wrote: > Hello. Would it be reasonable to suggest adding a ~security (or > something like it) flag to denote packages masked for security > reasons?
Hi Aleksey, since entries package.mask only contain free text description as an additional information, such a feature would require the package manager to decide which entries are security maskings, and which are feature maskings. While that could be done using restrictions/conventions within the text, I am sure our package manager developers would disagree with such a design. A "package.security.mask" file might be more appropriate for that. My question now is, why would you want such a thing? Masked packages all have different reasons to be there, and you should decide to use one on a case-by-case basis. Regards, Robert
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
