From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N7BR6-0004Pd-I4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:20:20 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 77CDFE07A7; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:20:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52ACFE0777 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:20:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arcarius.localnet (smer.tone.cz [89.250.247.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797B067DDC for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:20:18 +0000 (UTC) From: =?utf-8?q?Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1_Chv=C3=A1tal?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] QA: package.mask policies Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:20:00 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.3 (Linux/2.6.31-gentoo-r3; KDE/4.3.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <200911071824.16651.scarabeus@gentoo.org> <20091108175710.49302d71@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <20091108175710.49302d71@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart89839591.NDexJbFsxA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200911081820.04313.scarabeus@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: f6d6f018-5853-4e2f-b681-323104d79096 X-Archives-Hash: ff9f3dd654f283d56fc10e6dc2ebedce --nextPart89839591.NDexJbFsxA Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dne ned=C4=9Ble 08 Listopad 2009 17:57:10 Jeroen Roovers napsal(a): > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:24:10 +0100 >=20 > Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Chv=C3=A1tal wrote: > > * Masking beta... > > This masks are good if the software release is KNOWN to break > > previous behaviour or degrade user experience. Otherwise the software > > should not be masked (its TESTING for purpose, not stable). > > Also the maintainer should watch if the testing branch is still > > relevant (why on earth we have masked 4.0.3_p20070403 version of > > screen when newer 4.3 is stable ;]) and remove the branch+mask when > > needed. >=20 > I agree with your criticism (i.e. that the mask should not be there, > especially not for "testing" as what the mask does is *prevent* testing > instead of enabling it), but must note that your version sorting > algorithm appears to be flawed: pkg-vX_pY (for patch level) is always > greater than pkg-vX. >=20 >=20 > Regards, > jer >=20 I agree that _p is newer than that. But if we look on tag of screen-4.0.3 or its release: screen-4.0.2.tar.gz 27-Jan-2004 05:46 821K =20 screen-4.0.2.tar.gz.sig 27-Jan-2004 05:47 65 =20 screen-4.0.3.tar.gz 07-Aug-2008 06:30 821K =20 screen-4.0.3.tar.gz.sig 07-Aug-2008 06:30 65 =20 You see the pattern? It is 1 year newer than it. Tomas --nextPart89839591.NDexJbFsxA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkr2/cQACgkQHB6c3gNBRYdVFgCgpEDmEsustHRQvxHBTeePf0KC aKgAn0XavHI+kK3KB7f9tnDvmz7KamP2 =MGbI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart89839591.NDexJbFsxA--