misfit[1004]:~% sudo emerge -uva nethack Password: These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies | !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "games-roguelike/nethack" have been masked. !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request: - games-roguelike/nethack-3.4.3-r1 (masked by: package.mask) /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask: # Tavis Ormandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (21 Mar 2006) # masked pending unresolved security issues #125902 For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. misfit[1005]:~% On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:42 AM, Robert Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > >
