On Sunday 22 October 2006 16:17, David Shakaryan wrote:
> 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?
no, punt it ... if people want such a poin
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
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 assump
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 09:08:18PM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 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 important to yell at t
On Sunday 22 October 2006 20:50, Alec Warner wrote:
> 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.
>
> Except it may have been unmasked by this script.
He said he unmasked things that aren't in the tree anymore
Alec Warner wrote:
> Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:18:52 -0700 David Shakaryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>> | I have created a small script to go through entries in package.mask
>>> | and list those which are masking non-existent packages or version
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
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
>>> h
Jakub Moc wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:18:52 -0700 David Shakaryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I have created a small script to go through entries in package.mask
| and list those which are masking non-existent packages or versions. I
| then used this list to clean u
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:18:52 -0700 David Shakaryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I have created a small script to go through entries in package.mask
> | and list those which are masking non-existent packages or versions. I
> | then used this list to clean up package.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:18:52 -0700 David Shakaryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I have created a small script to go through entries in package.mask
| and list those which are masking non-existent packages or versions. I
| then used this list to clean up package.mask. I tried to only remove
| versio
I have created a small script to go through entries in package.mask and
list those which are masking non-existent packages or versions. I then
used this list to clean up package.mask. I tried to only remove versions
that were removed and have a newer version in place, along with packages
that were
12 matches
Mail list logo
