Marius Mauch wrote: > On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:00:56 -0700 > David Shakaryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. > > And what if that was a preventive mask? The assumption of not-in-tree => > can-be-removed-from-p.mask isn't valid in all cases. Also there isn't any > particular need to "cleanup" package.mask so there is no reason for this to > be done without prior notice. > > Marius
Hypothetically speaking, if version 1.4 of a package is in package.mask and we are now at version 1.6, with 1.4 removed from the tree, is there really a reason why the mask for 1.4 should stay? I don't see why we'll re-add an older version later, and if we do, it's not too hard to mask it again if the problem which caused it to be masked still prevails. Feel free to undo any of my changes for which there is a clear reason to let the mask stay. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
