From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j3GDIX3w028162 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:18:33 GMT Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DMnBk-0005PN-5E for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:18:20 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DMn8B-00043A-Bu for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:14:39 +0200 Received: from ip68-230-66-193.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.66.193]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:14:39 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-66-193.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:14:39 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:18:08 -0700 Organization: Sometimes Message-ID: References: <200504160656.43452@zippy.emcb.local> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-66-193.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 51c0cab7-f2be-46f7-a9a2-5c94528ffd92 X-Archives-Hash: e5a76e23068a6a029d8e0f8d2c3ec67f Elfyn McBratney posted <200504160656.43452@zippy.emcb.local>, excerpted below, on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:56:34 +0100: > A number of people have suggested putting these updated ebuilds back into > package.mask, or lessening the impact of the upgrade from current stable > apache to the new ~arch apache. So, I would like to solicit advice from the > developer community as to how we can rectify this. > > The way I see it, we have three options: > - package.mask (downgrades for those early adopters) [snip] As a user that tends to get a bit upset when perfectly working (on my system) packages are package masked, forcing a downgrade, without clear reason, here's my perspective. * Put a clear explanation in the package-mask comment, particularly indicating that it's safe to unmask and continue to use if you already have it installed and working -- IOW, that it's not a security issue causing the masking. Something like, # Masked pending further development and testing. Current working # installations may package.unmask to prevent # forced downgrade. Or, reference a bug number instead of that "pending" language. Again, just clearly indicate the reason for any masking that will force a downgrade, particularly whether it's security related or not, and the consequences of /not/ downgrading, thus giving the user, that is, the local Gentoo system administrator, enough information to make a good decision on whether they can /safely/ package.unmask it and continue to use it, or not. I must say... In general, the Gentoo devs already get high marks for this. =8^) Only once have I had to ask what the force-downgrade masking was about, because all the comment effectively said was "remasking this", something I obviously already knew if I was looking at the comment in the package.mask file. =8^( (Actually, I think that incident had to do with keyword masking, but the point still stands. Clear comment explaining why, and I'm a happy camper ; unclear comment, and I'm not, because I've been deprived of the information necessary to effectively carry out /my/ responsibilities as a Gentoo sysadmin.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list