Jakub Moc wrote:
David Shakaryan napsal(a):
Alec Warner wrote:
Jakub Moc wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
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.
I also fail to see the problem. I checked and none of the "unmasked"
versions/ebuilds is actually in the tree. Where's the security issue
here? Do we need a dumspace for non-existant stuff in package.mask?
It's good, chill ;)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
