[gentoo-dev] Unmasking =dev-libs/openssl-1.1*

[gentoo-dev] Unmasking =dev-libs/openssl-1.1*

[Craig Andrews]

=dev-libs/openssl-1.1* has been masked since 26 Aug 2016 - that's over 2 
years ago. I think it's time to talk about dropping the mask.

The tracker issue https://bugs.gentoo.org/592438 currently has 12 open 
issues. Some will be closed by tree cleaning.

package.mask also shows a number of packages being masked because their 
latest versions require >=dev-libs/openssl-1.1

What's the plan for removing this mask?

Thanks,
~Craig

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking =dev-libs/openssl-1.1*

[Craig Andrews]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 751 bytes --]

On 06.11.2018 12:53, Craig Andrews wrote:
> =dev-libs/openssl-1.1* has been masked since 26 Aug 2016 - that's over
> 2 years ago. I think it's time to talk about dropping the mask.
> 
> The tracker issue https://bugs.gentoo.org/592438 currently has 12 open
> issues. Some will be closed by tree cleaning.
> 
> package.mask also shows a number of packages being masked because
> their latest versions require >=dev-libs/openssl-1.1
> 
> What's the plan for removing this mask?
> 
> Thanks,
> ~Craig

I think we should make a plan for removing this mask. I'm not saying we 
do it today or tomorrow - but we should do it someday.

Should we set a date for removing the mask? Should the tracker have 0 
issues blocking it? Something else?

Thanks,
~Craig

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking =dev-libs/openssl-1.1*

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 554 bytes --]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 14:29:12 -0500
Craig Andrews <candrews@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Should the tracker have 0 issues blocking it?

Yes, because setting a date won't put a fire under upstreams ass.

And I imagine lots of the blocking status is in upstreams hands.

( I mean, if we can fix it ourselves, great, but if we were able to do
that, surely we should also be able to send those fixes upstream, and
surely, upstream would be eager to accept them, but otherwise, upstream
might be the only people who know how to reliably fix their code )

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]