[gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[foser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 195 bytes --]

Hey,

just added a mask for media-gfx/sodipodi. It has been forked into
inkscape and sodipodi development subsequently has stagnated. I intend
to remove sodipodi in about 7 days.

- foser

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 904 bytes --]

foser <foser@gentoo.org> said:
> Hey,
> 
> just added a mask for media-gfx/sodipodi. It has been forked into
> inkscape and sodipodi development subsequently has stagnated. I intend
> to remove sodipodi in about 7 days.

Not directed specifically at you, but it seems a lot of people are
masking stuff and removing it very quickly, and I'd really like to see
everyone wait the 30 days to remove something from the tree.  That way
anyone using this package in some way will get the message from p.mask,
and know what they should upgrade to.

With that being said, is there any reason that the package should be
removed so quickly?

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
                  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
                  http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] up for removal timeframe

[foser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 727 bytes --]

On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 18:55 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> With that being said, is there any reason that the package should be
> removed so quickly?

Not really, but in my experience packages up for removal are quite
obviously so. Meaning that usually there's little question that it
should go.

In this case for example, there has been no upstream activity for a long
time now (a year at least), the project got forked before that and now
really has a second life as inkscape. I was even thinking about adding a
move statement for it when removing.

On the other hand, I don't mind waiting 30 days either. It's just that
most removals right now give a 1-2 week period react time, I just kept
to that.

- foser

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 993 bytes --]

On Thursday 30 March 2006 01:55, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Not directed specifically at you, but it seems a lot of people are
> masking stuff and removing it very quickly, and I'd really like to see
> everyone wait the 30 days to remove something from the tree.  That way
> anyone using this package in some way will get the message from p.mask,
> and know what they should upgrade to.
>
> With that being said, is there any reason that the package should be
> removed so quickly?

Yes, there is. It's slowing down the process, getting into the flow. Waiting 
30 days is a lot of time. A regular user does not necessarily follow the 
dev-gentoo mailing list and it doesn't matter for him, if the package is 
masked or removed. He can always get it from (web-)cvs. The time to wait is 
to give others the time to step up to maintain the package. And if some dev 
missed the announcement, nothing is stopping him to reintroduce the it. 
Honestly, I don't see the point.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Daniel Goller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1418 bytes --]

On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 19:18 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Thursday 30 March 2006 01:55, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Not directed specifically at you, but it seems a lot of people are
> > masking stuff and removing it very quickly, and I'd really like to see
> > everyone wait the 30 days to remove something from the tree.  That way
> > anyone using this package in some way will get the message from p.mask,
> > and know what they should upgrade to.
> >
> > With that being said, is there any reason that the package should be
> > removed so quickly?
> 
> Yes, there is. It's slowing down the process, getting into the flow. Waiting 
> 30 days is a lot of time. A regular user does not necessarily follow the 
> dev-gentoo mailing list and it doesn't matter for him, if the package is 
> masked or removed. He can always get it from (web-)cvs. The time to wait is 
> to give others the time to step up to maintain the package. And if some dev 
> missed the announcement, nothing is stopping him to reintroduce the it. 
> Honestly, I don't see the point.
> 
> 

exactly, what's the point of removing it so fast? give people a chance
to miss it, it does not matter if it's removed or masked only as far as
going "woah, what?" and if masked it is a matter of unmasking rather
than recommitting 

in short, if it's slowing down the process, why do you need it to be
quick in the first place?


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 694 bytes --]

On Sunday 02 April 2006 04:48, Daniel Goller wrote:
> exactly, what's the point of removing it so fast? give people a chance
> to miss it, it does not matter if it's removed or masked only as far as
> going "woah, what?" and if masked it is a matter of unmasking rather
> than recommitting

We haven't had a single issue with the usual seven day period as far as I can 
remember, so please come up with a valid argument against it, instead 
assuming turning my argument would be one.

> in short, if it's slowing down the process, why do you need it to be
> quick in the first place?

Getting the junk out of tree and mind as fast as possible is a value in 
itself.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 636 bytes --]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 21:20:21 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| We haven't had a single issue with the usual seven day period

The usual period is thirty days.

| > in short, if it's slowing down the process, why do you need it to be
| > quick in the first place?
| 
| Getting the junk out of tree and mind as fast as possible is a value
| in itself.

Once it's in p.mask it's effectively gone, to the extent that ignoring
it for a month is fine.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 384 bytes --]

On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The usual period is thirty days.

Grep this mailing list, most often a one week period was used.

> Once it's in p.mask it's effectively gone, to the extent that ignoring
> it for a month is fine.

Who said a package gets masked before it gets removed? There is no such 
requirement in the ebuild policy.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Simon Stelling]

Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> Who said a package gets masked before it gets removed? There is no such 
> requirement in the ebuild policy.

Come on. Is this a 'policy doesn't say I have to be sane' war? It's absolutely 
reasonable to p.mask a package that is pending for removal. That way you give 
the users a timeframe which they can search for alternative tools in. I don't 
know whether policy does state this or not, I don't care. It's not like you 
would get any bugs for a masked package. It's not like you would gain a lot of 
space because you freed up 3 ebuilds and a few digests. It's not like you would 
gain anything from removing it immediately. But those who use the package do 
gain a lot from you giving them a hint to search for alternatives.

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 507 bytes --]

On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:29, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Come on. Is this a 'policy doesn't say I have to be sane' war? It's 
> absolutely reasonable to p.mask a package that is pending for removal. That
> way you give the users a timeframe which they can search for alternative
> tools in.

This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at package.mask. 
Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is void. And even 
if - four weeks are a too long, imho.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Marcelo Góes]

On 4/2/06, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at package.mask.
> Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is void. And even
> if - four weeks are a too long, imho.

I still do not understand what the rush is with removing a package.
Readding a package if necessary will be much more troublesome than
just keeping it masked for a month. I believe this is the general
consensus on the subject.

Marcelo
--
Marcelo Góes
marcelogoes@gmail.com
vanquirius@gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Andrej Kacian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1042 bytes --]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 18:42:50 -0300
"Marcelo Góes" <vanquirius@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 4/2/06, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at
> > package.mask. Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is
> > void. And even if - four weeks are a too long, imho.
> 
> I still do not understand what the rush is with removing a package.
> Readding a package if necessary will be much more troublesome than
> just keeping it masked for a month. I believe this is the general
> consensus on the subject.
> 

+1 on this one.

Give people (and developers) time, not everybody is lightning's younger
brother like you seem to be. Contrary to popular belief, there actually *are*
people who sync less often than once per week. It's not like package.mask-ed
package hurts anyone.

I can't see what's the rush here either.

Kind regards,
-- 
Andrej "Ticho" Kacian <ticho at gentoo dot org>
Gentoo Linux Developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Alexander Gretencord]

On Sunday 02 April 2006 17:23, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at
> package.mask. Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is
> void. And even if - four weeks are a too long, imho.

As Andrej Kacian already noted, there are quite some people that don't sync 
every week. My general feeling is that most gentoo devs are far too fast in 
their decision/actions. As I already stated elsewhere in this thread, I 
generally only sync when I need to upgrade for feature/bug-/security-fixes 
and I don't see why that would be a bad idea. That way I get the benefits of 
gentoo but don't spend all day merging stuff that will have a new version two 
hours later :)

Regarding your argument that you have to be actively looking at p.mask, that 
is not entirely true because a verbose world/system merge will tell you about 
a masked package, although I do think that this is not enough and even the 
message in verbose mode is not really noticeable. But just because portage 
does not really alert the user anyway, does not mean that masking first is 
bad, does it? I think the reporting of missing/masked packages in portage has 
to be improved, instead of removing the masking process :)

Just my 0.02EUR.


Alex
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Simon Stelling]

Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at package.mask. 
> Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is void. And even 
> if - four weeks are a too long, imho.

It does. Almost all users do emerge -u world when updating their system. 
  Their portage will then tell them that the package is masked and why. 
So they DO get informed.

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Simon Stelling]

  # emerge -uD world
Calculating world dependencies \
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "media-libs/mesa" have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your 
request:
- media-libs/mesa-6.4.2-r2 (masked by: package.mask)
# Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> (07 Aug 2005)
# Modularized X, upstream release candidates


For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or
refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
(dependency required by "media-libs/jasper-1.701.0" [ebuild])



!!! Problem resolving dependencies for x11-misc/xscreensaver
!!! Depgraph creation failed.

Note that this has been a feature since a veeery long time.

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 830 bytes --]

Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:29, Simon Stelling wrote:
> 
>>Come on. Is this a 'policy doesn't say I have to be sane' war? It's 
>>absolutely reasonable to p.mask a package that is pending for removal. That
>>way you give the users a timeframe which they can search for alternative
>>tools in.
> 
> 
> This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at package.mask. 
> Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is void. And even 
> if - four weeks are a too long, imho.

slon ~ # emerge -uDNpv world

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating world dependencies \
!!! Packages for the following atoms are either all
!!! masked or don't exist:
games-fps/cube dev-util/eclipse-pydev-bin
[...]


Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 258 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 118 bytes --]

Jan Kundrát wrote:
[...]
My mail server apparently sucks, sorry.

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 258 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 896 bytes --]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 22:20:49 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The usual period is thirty days.
| 
| Grep this mailing list, most often a one week period was used.

This is a recent change, and usually someone replies with "why not a
month?".

| > Once it's in p.mask it's effectively gone, to the extent that
| > ignoring it for a month is fine.
| 
| Who said a package gets masked before it gets removed? There is no
| such requirement in the ebuild policy.

It's not a requirement. It's a courtesy to your users and fellow
developers, at least some of whom would very much appreciate it if you
left things for ~four weeks rather than ~one.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 812 bytes --]

On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> This is a recent change, and usually someone replies with "why not a
> month?".

This is simply not true or we have very different ideas of the meaning of 
recent. The vast majority of "last rites" emails from 2005 had slated 
removals of one week or less.

> It's not a requirement. It's a courtesy to your users and fellow
> developers, at least some of whom would very much appreciate it if you
> left things for ~four weeks rather than ~one.

I don't see the necessity for devs and users would have to look at the 
package.mask file regularly to get the information that a package is masked. 
If Portage would be that smart to spit out the relevant information on 
emerge --sync, a longer period would probably make sense.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 946 bytes --]

Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> I don't see the necessity for devs and users would have to look at the 
> package.mask file regularly to get the information that a package is masked. 
> If Portage would be that smart to spit out the relevant information on 
> emerge --sync, a longer period would probably make sense.

Not that I'd care so much whether it's a week or a month (IMO individual
depending on ebuild in question) - so just a technical note. Portage 2.1
*does* spit out the relevant info.

# emerge -uDpv world

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating world dependencies /
!!! Packages for the following atoms are either all
!!! masked or don't exist:
net-ftp/glftpd


... done!

# esearch glftpd
[ Results for search key : glftpd ]
[ Applications found : 1 ]

*  net-ftp/glftpd [ Masked ]
      Latest version available: 2.01
      Latest version installed: 1.32



-- 

jakub


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 607 bytes --]

On Sunday 02 April 2006 23:26, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Not that I'd care so much whether it's a week or a month (IMO individual
> depending on ebuild in question) - so just a technical note. Portage 2.1
> *does* spit out the relevant info.

I'm aware of this, but that doesn't help anyone running running arch. Not that 
I like the implementation...

> Calculating world dependencies /
> !!! Packages for the following atoms are either all
> !!! masked or don't exist:
> net-ftp/glftpd

...since the user has still manually to look up what's going on. Can't call 
that user friendly.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Daniel Goller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1637 bytes --]

On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 21:20 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 04:48, Daniel Goller wrote:
> > exactly, what's the point of removing it so fast? give people a chance
> > to miss it, it does not matter if it's removed or masked only as far as
> > going "woah, what?" and if masked it is a matter of unmasking rather
> > than recommitting
> 
> We haven't had a single issue with the usual seven day period as far as I can 
> remember, so please come up with a valid argument against it, instead 
> assuming turning my argument would be one.
> 
> > in short, if it's slowing down the process, why do you need it to be
> > quick in the first place?
> 
> Getting the junk out of tree and mind as fast as possible is a value in 
> itself.
> 

you should apply a finer granularity and not call them all junk, even a
unmaintained package that only has 50% of its features working might be
the only thing someone has, where does this hurt anyone?, or maybe it is
unmaintained but has no single (uncovered flaw), where does this hurt
anyone? or or or, point is, say you would like certain vulnerable
packages removed quicker, without making the waiting the usual 30 days
sound insane.

with that kind of grace period you give people the chance to say "oh
hey, i have this patch in my patch overlay, let me give it to you"

just wait a little, it hurts noone usually, if it's a security issue,
say it is and use a shorter time, noone is gonna have a problem, unless
carlo suddenly goes under the cloak of security and yanks everything he
wants under those pretences... :)

my $1


Daniel


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1806 bytes --]

Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> said:
> On Thursday 30 March 2006 01:55, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Not directed specifically at you, but it seems a lot of people are
> > masking stuff and removing it very quickly, and I'd really like to see
> > everyone wait the 30 days to remove something from the tree.  That way
> > anyone using this package in some way will get the message from p.mask,
> > and know what they should upgrade to.
> >
> > With that being said, is there any reason that the package should be
> > removed so quickly?
> 
> Yes, there is. It's slowing down the process, getting into the flow. Waiting 
> 30 days is a lot of time. A regular user does not necessarily follow the 
> dev-gentoo mailing list and it doesn't matter for him, if the package is 
> masked or removed.

Because everyone is sitting in anticipation of the package being
removed?  Mask the package, and go about your life as if it was gone.
Then in a month when you remember about it again, remove it.

The difference is, if you mask the package, the user gets a nice error
message explaining what is going on.  If you just remove the package,
then they just get an error that the package has disappeared on them.
By your logic, we should do away with the entire masking process and
just remove stuff when we like, and that would just lead to users filing
lots of bugs asking where their package went.

Everyone used to wait the month, but lately it seems like no one can
ignore the package for that long after putting it in p.mask.

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
                  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
                  http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Alexander Gretencord]

On Saturday 01 April 2006 22:52, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Yes, there is. It's slowing down the process, getting into the flow.
> > Waiting 30 days is a lot of time. A regular user does not necessarily
> > follow the dev-gentoo mailing list and it doesn't matter for him, if the
> > package is masked or removed.

First of all I'm not a dev but I do read the dev mailing list exactly because 
I want to know whats going on because changes to the tree normally really hit 
me without warning. The apache config layout change hit me when I needed to 
upgrade and had not the time to mess with configuration issues. Thats because 
I am not the typical gentoo-i-have-to-sync-every-30-seconds user. The last 
time I synced was about 3 weeks ago. On my server its even more than that. I 
generally sync when I need a new version of something because I know of a 
bugfix/feature I need or when I see a GLSA (or Bugtraq posting by some other 
distro/vuln researcher and the gentoo package is already fixed without a GLSA 
being out). That being said, changes in package naming/categorization or 
configuration layout (think apache mess), is by far worse than an old package 
being removed. For a dev 30 days may be a long time indeed.

> Because everyone is sitting in anticipation of the package being
> removed?  Mask the package, and go about your life as if it was gone.
> Then in a month when you remember about it again, remove it.

What does the month give you? Nothing. If someone was trying to update his 
sodipodi manually he would mostly get nothing because upstream was dead. 
Masking helps during that 30 days, after that you don't know whats going on 
either. And considering that upstream is dead for about a year I think most 
people will not try to update that package every 2 days or something like 
that.

> By your logic, we should do away with the entire masking process and
> just remove stuff when we like, and that would just lead to users filing
> lots of bugs asking where their package went.

How about removing the package (its dead anyway) BUT keeping a message for all 
those trying to update. I don't know if that is even possible but it would be 
good to keep that message for more than 30 days.

> Everyone used to wait the month, but lately it seems like no one can
> ignore the package for that long after putting it in p.mask.

I totally agree with you on that. If 30 days are the documented period, then 
devs have to stick to it. If it is too long for them: Change the documented 
time period first! At least that would be professinal.


Alex
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 338 bytes --]

Alexander Gretencord wrote:
> And considering that upstream is dead for about a year I think most
> people will not try to update that package every 2 days or something like 
> that.

Most people upgrade the whole system at once - those would see a warning
about masked package.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 258 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] media-gfx/sodipodi

[Alexander Gretencord]

On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:12, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> > And considering that upstream is dead for about a year I think most
> > people will not try to update that package every 2 days or something like
> > that.
> Most people upgrade the whole system at once - those would see a warning
> about masked package.

Yeah I know most people do. But then all that emerge world will tell most 
people is something like "no new package since you emerged world one hour 
ago" :) But well, you mean that easily overlooked message at the top of the 
"emerge -vp world" listing, which is followed by about 3 screens of 
wonderfully coloured messages? I'm sure I wouldn't notice it if I was to 
merge world. Ok the normal gentoo user does probably not get so many 
updateable packages but then again, if you don't pretend before merging world 
you don't even get that message. And if I pretend without -v I don't get the 
message either. I'm on portage 2.0.54 if that makes any difference. If it is 
more noticeable in other portage versions then forget everything I said :)

This is the same kind of issue as the "but there was a message printed in 
pkg_postinst!!!11", that you can observe in the "who renamed 
adsl-start..."-thread.


Alex

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list