From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1ICznt-0005Fb-AT for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:26:33 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6NFQQgm010839; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:26:26 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6NFQPB0010833 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:26:26 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CAE865219 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:26:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 0.546 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.546 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.545, BAYES_50=0.001] 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 lBepsRNew5me for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:26:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA165647F8 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:26:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.internal [10.202.2.42]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E32A02F for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:26:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web5.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.214]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:26:21 -0400 Received: by web5.messagingengine.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id 69A7C8F5A; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:26:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1185204380.26942.1201582859@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Sasl-Enc: Br3J3ZrTd8ckDxBpmyt2ZH3DIxB9tgolR6wL3YxknBSc 1185204380 From: "Thomas Tuttle" To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface References: <200707221238.21810.rbu@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Automation: Making package.mask better In-Reply-To: <200707221238.21810.rbu@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:26:20 -0400 X-Archives-Salt: 4eb7f320-a28f-480a-87cb-2dec279dc098 X-Archives-Hash: ef537919dc9ca099a1743479aa02b3c5 On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:38:21 +0200, "Robert Buchholz" said: > 3. We could also introduce some kind of "Keywords" as in Bugzilla to > mark certain situations, as UNUSABLE, SECURITY, LASTRITED. Do we need I would particularly like this, because it's nice to know why a package has been package.masked. This would make it easier to decide whether I want to unmask things or not. (Perhaps some sort of ACCEPT_MASKED variable could be set up, so I could choose to accept packages with certain types of problems, with the knowledge that they might break.) Just my $0.02, Thomas Tuttle -- Thomas Tuttle - ttuttle@ttuttle.net - http://www.ttuttle.net/ -- gentoo-project@gentoo.org mailing list