On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 12:11:04 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > 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: > > > 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
Probably this policy should be changed. It is a common (yet not enfroced) rule to support at least one year old setups. Thus masks should remain at least one year after package (or affected version (s)) was removed from tree. People can't emerge world daily. IMO it will hurt no-one to retain that list forever, maybe put it to something like package.mask.obsolete and update PMS to support it. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko
pgp809SdcWKBw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
