[gentoo-dev] old "masked for testing" entries

[gentoo-dev] old "masked for testing" entries

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1417 bytes --]

All,

Rich Freeman asked, in another thread, for specific examples of old
package.mask entries that just have "masked for testing" as the
description.

Here is what I found with a quick look through package.mask. These
should be cleaned up by either 1) removing the mask or 2) booting the
affected packages or versions from the tree.

# Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org> (05 Jan 2013)
# Masked for testing. Is not compatible with cvsps-2 (bug #450424).
# But can be used on it's own! Try 'cvsps --fast-export'.
>=dev-vcs/cvsps-3

# Tim Harder <radhermit@gentoo.org> (27 Nov 2012)
# Masked for testing
=media-libs/libsfml-2*

# Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> (03 Nov 2012)
# Masked for testing
app-benchmarks/ltp

# Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org> (08 Oct 2012)
# Masked for testing
=sys-libs/db-6.0*
=sys-libs/db-5.3*
=sys-libs/db-5.2*
=sys-libs/db-5.1*
=sys-libs/db-5.0*

# Ultrabug <ultrabug@gentoo.org> (16 May 2012)
# Masked for testing
>=sys-cluster/corosync-2.0.0

# MATSUU Takuto <matsuu@gentoo.org> (27 Oct 2011)
# Mask for testing
>=sys-devel/distcc-3.2_rc1

# Christian Faulhammer <fauli@gentoo.org> (12 Mar 2011)
# Mask for testing
>=www-apps/joomla-1.6.0

# Michael Sterrett <mr_bones_@gentoo.org> (20 Jan 2010)
# testing mask for upcoming exult release
>=games-engines/exult-1.3

# Vlastimil Babka <caster@gentoo.org> (20 May 2008)
# Masked for testing
app-arch/rpm5

Thanks,

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] old "masked for testing" entries

[Mike Gilbert]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:38 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> Rich Freeman asked, in another thread, for specific examples of old
> package.mask entries that just have "masked for testing" as the
> description.
>
> Here is what I found with a quick look through package.mask. These
> should be cleaned up by either 1) removing the mask or 2) booting the
> affected packages or versions from the tree.
>

Or 3) Improve the mask message.

For example, I think  the major reason for the sys-libs/db mask is a
weird licensing issue. It's still nice to have it in the tree.

Re: [gentoo-dev] old "masked for testing" entries

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 882 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:46:04PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:38 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Rich Freeman asked, in another thread, for specific examples of old
> > package.mask entries that just have "masked for testing" as the
> > description.
> >
> > Here is what I found with a quick look through package.mask. These
> > should be cleaned up by either 1) removing the mask or 2) booting the
> > affected packages or versions from the tree.
> >
> 
> Or 3) Improve the mask message.
>
> For example, I think  the major reason for the sys-libs/db mask is a
> weird licensing issue. It's still nice to have it in the tree.

If there is a weird licensing issue, it would be better to get
the answers needed to resolve that issue and remove the mask.

p.mask should never be permanent.

William

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] old "masked for testing" entries

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "MG" == Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> writes:

MG> For example, I think  the major reason for the sys-libs/db mask is a
MG> weird licensing issue. It's still nice to have it in the tree.

That only applies to db:6.0.  

I know debian and ubuntu primarily use 5.3 these days, with the only
issues being related to upgrading existing stores to the newer formats
as they release newer versions and re-compilations of the reverse
dependencies linked against 5.3.

I've read that some heavy users of db, such as sks, work better with 5.3
than they did with older versions.  But upgrading needs to be done with care.

So it should be fine to unmask 5.3 and slowly update reverse
dependencies to depend on 5.3 instead of whichever 4.x they currently
demand.

Unmasking the earlier 5.x releases seems unnecessary, though.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

Re: [gentoo-dev] old "masked for testing" entries

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 06/30/2014 11:40 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>>>>>> "MG" == Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> writes:
> 


> I've read that some heavy users of db, such as sks, work better
> with 5.3 than they did with older versions.  But upgrading needs to
> be done with care.
> 

I'm not familiar with any large difference. I'm testing with 5.2 for
my live SKS ebuild which I've been using for quite some time on a few
of my servers as backends of the load-balanced without any issues,
I've not tried 5.3 yet. The net-misc/sks package for ~arch is still on
4.8 without any issues on the rest of the servers. Upgrading is
relatively easy, mostly involving cleaning the environment, which will
be re-generated with the updated version.

- -- 
- ----------------------------
Kristian Fiskerstrand
Blog: http://blog.sumptuouscapital.com
Twitter: @krifisk
- ----------------------------
Public PGP key 0xE3EDFAE3 at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
- ----------------------------
Nomina stultorum scribuntur ubique locorum
Fools have the habit of writing their names everywhere
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTsd0hAAoJEPw7F94F4TagCmsP/0fNyRcCDgpEpscr2nM3gAnC
ccO8vmB44lAXNh4Zq01hb334vBl+qDT7fJDQDt/Jb39NKA/2zMQskKzVkDa1vnaj
4YHE7pfx128GtAuUCWZgKipkMUG1hKEuL3GZL2KaaoJ/zk6JYLW/z2ZZuo99N7JI
ks0ltdIwPNTmj8YVxFQKqo9Nbb9yrrMNYGfxPmFQdSRr5ZkM+ieOihkh95ICTz5C
qfyn2eh85mVPS+aMN8MzuQQLE5hMauQ+YohiZ3Q4NIx0hdjTesEbzBi1hDIOng74
nbxnCZ/7E2VNMRC/wOFRVcYxr/D3gETVlwvm2VIsALxF6jdYkWcJmkKM19fURAaO
fS5FQVRcXRBL2/1spBSH6Z8/EoYATl1YsylLmncGfOwaD3gAUHZhRqXar82HvSFC
uH5MYS96D63loicUE4VDPGekfbKzm8jOhhPXWOCvNDdyQIpitvwe4YdJefNQv3B5
8ybmFygQO9/zL0pUwBx8z2V0ciJ+Jb6Vx1+nMrjxYakkJUVsJAnGodeEODh7E4eY
3vAst/005dPPPuQbHbxZgS+01ZnRu1Ed1uqfxM0mQpTNKyUg+Dr4lLzEblzGP0AT
ct//vkAREZGftWnegsSGGVcT1YHm5GVN3gvtIF5UEWLUJvzlJZlS/rE9rTQopq4U
2QyV6VUKzk9NHnDYf9YE
=AHJf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] old "masked for testing" entries

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "KF" == Kristian Fiskerstrand <kristian.fiskerstrand@sumptuouscapital.com> writes:

KF> I'm not familiar with any large difference.

I only mentioned sks because it is the only heavy user of berk db I
currently run.  Most either moved on to other libs or I use w/ pg.

I did get the impression from the sks list that db5 worked better than
db4, though.  Or perhaps that was something which sleapycat fixed in
more recent versions of 4, too?

KF> I'm testing with 5.2 for my live SKS ebuild which I've been using
KF> for quite some time on a few of my servers as backends of the
KF> load-balanced without any issues,

KF> Upgrading is relatively easy, mostly involving cleaning the
KF> environment, which will be re-generated with the updated version.

The issue seen on debian was that the tools for 5.1 were used by the
upgrade script when the sks-dependent-on-5.3 was released, but there was
no dependency so apt didn't know to ensure that the binary dpkg required
was installed.

That shouldn't be an issue on Gentoo, given that the programs installed
with a given db SLOT are not dependent on any USE flags and the parallel
versions tend to remain longer.

It seems, even though I only mentioned it in an aside, I could have
thought of a better example.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

Re: [gentoo-dev] old "masked for testing" entries

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --]

Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 17:40:16
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> napisał(a):

> I've read that some heavy users of db, such as sks, work better with 5.3
> than they did with older versions.  But upgrading needs to be done with care.
> 
> So it should be fine to unmask 5.3 and slowly update reverse
> dependencies to depend on 5.3 instead of whichever 4.x they currently
> demand.
> 
> Unmasking the earlier 5.x releases seems unnecessary, though.

While at it, please don't unmask <5.3.28-r1 (EAPI<5 ebuilds). Multilib
relies heavily on not having anything EAPI<5 over 4.8.30-r1.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] old "masked for testing" entries

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "MG" == Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> writes:

MG> Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 17:40:16
MG> James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> napisał(a):

>> So it should be fine to unmask 5.3 and slowly update reverse
>> dependencies to depend on 5.3 instead of whichever 4.x they
>> currently demand.

>> Unmasking the earlier 5.x releases seems unnecessary, though.

MG> While at it, please don't unmask <5.3.28-r1 (EAPI<5 ebuilds). Multilib
MG> relies heavily on not having anything EAPI<5 over 4.8.30-r1.

Good point.  I should have more precise and said "the most recent ebuild
in the 5.3 SLOT", which is what I was thinking.

-JimC
--
-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6