On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 12:24:12PM -0500, Mike Pagano wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 12:14:23PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:11 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 11:21:56AM -0500, Mike Pagano wrote: > > >> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 05:47:10PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > >> > All, > > >> > > > > > If you remove the mask, users will no longer be warned that they are > > using a flawed copy of the kernel sources. > > > > Thus, Mike's question about timing. > > > > Exactly.
This should be a different thread then since this wasn't in the list I originally posted. However, this is considered an invalid package.mask entry since the package that was being masked is no longer in the tree [1]. This is just something that QA or anyone can clean up as far as I know. We don't worry about masking packages that no longer exist in the tree. William [1] http://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/invalid-mask.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
