Re: [gentoo-user] skype package changes I don't understand

[Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com>]

Am Montag, 21. Mai 2012, 08:55:25 schrieb Mark Knecht:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> 
wrote:
> > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I love my Gentoo-devs, but what is the train of thought here?
> >> skype-2.2.0.35-r1 was ~amd64 yesterday. It's installed and working
> >> fine. Today 2.2.0.35-r99 is ~amd64, which is perfectly fine, but
> >> they've completely removed -r1 and now I'm required to unmask
> >> emulation packages that only came out today? That doesn't seem quite
> >> right...
> >> 
> >> Why did they completely get rid of -r1? That should stick around for a
> >> little while after -r99 becomes ~amd64, shouldn't it?
> >> 
> >> - Mark
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> > -r1 had a security problem. You should unmask the emulation packages
> > and continue the update process. Look at the ChangeLog so see what
> > changed. Both versions are ~amd64 so I don't understand your complain
> > about keeping -r1 in the tree for a while.
> > 
> > Markos
> 
> Thanks Markos. That's likely what I'll do, although the alternative
> I'm looking at for now is possibly getting -r1 from an overlay.
> 
> I didn't think I was _complaining_. I was just asking what the train
> of thought was that leads them to do this sort of thing. Everything in
> the world has a security problem. 

well, apart from this being not true at all. It is just stupid to keep a known 
BAD version in a TESTING tree.

> We know they are either found or not
> found. Unmasking 8 emulation libraries that have _yesterdays_ date in
> their names, and therefore makes them quite new, may:

new for their compilation. Not the code inside.
> 
> 1) Create more security problems

may, but it fixes a KNOWN problem.

> 
> 2) Create issues with other programs that use the libraries.

which are.. none?

> 
> Anyway, thanks for the response. I'll either unmask or use an overlay.

if you use testing, you have to deal with such kind of situations. Using a 
known broken version is just stupid.
There isn't a choice between those two. There is only a choice between: use 
unstable or stable.
And if you use unstable, don't complain about things being fluid.

-- 
#163933