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 1N6wXa-0002kN-Jx for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:26:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EF79AE07DD; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:26:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2A0E07DD for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:26:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0654267C88 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:26:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I+XdrO2QchGu for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:25:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC11C671B7 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:25:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1N6wXL-0007MW-El for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:25:47 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.21.207]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:25:47 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:25:47 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA: package.mask policies Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:25:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <200911071824.16651.scarabeus@gentoo.org> <20091107180322.GA23301@linux1> <20091107193312.5df04226@gentoo.org> <8b4c83ad0911071608n7ebc31dcy6e7eb1d9470b3067@mail.gmail.com> 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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 6c592f20-ac93-4612-9171-e8b22c4ba97d X-Archives-Hash: 2ad8b94ad5f235f4465bce0aec5d305b Nirbheek Chauhan posted on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:38:56 +0530 as excerpted: > We had something interesting happen with policykit. It was masked for a > very long time, and so all users of policykit had "sys-auth/policykit" > in p.unmask. Then it was unmasked, but of course who bothers cleaning u= p > their local configuration as long as it works? >=20 > Months later, policykit-0.92 was added (masked) which was ABI, API, UI, > everything incompatible. > And of course it completely hosed everything on top of X. > Lesson to be learnt: users are morons with short attention spans[1]. > 1. Of course, we ourselves come under the definition of "users" too.. ;= ) Ouch! I've had something like that bite me (user-side) too, when I=20 wondered why my package.mask entry wasn't being honored... I had a=20 package.unmask entry too! In theory that's what those stupid version string thingys are for, but=20 it's soooo much easier just to forget one! =3D:^[ Maybe something about this should go in the handbook -- a suggestion that= =20 if one is going to use a package.unmask entry, that they copy the=20 package.mask entry over, thus at least letting the devs minimize the=20 version spread damage with their package.mask entries. That's what I've=20 started doing, and it works surprisingly well, as I have right there the=20 comment on why it was masked (and add a comment on why I'm unmasking,=20 when I think I might wonder, later), and it's the exact same versions the= =20 devs masked in the first place, so I don't have to worry so much about=20 unintended version spread -- at least as long as the devs doing the=20 masking worried about it then. =3D:^) What do you devs think? Would that be a practical hint for the=20 handbook? Would it be helpful in allowing /you/ to control the version=20 spread of the unmask, by consequence of your control of the version=20 spread on the mask in the first place? --=20 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