net-misc/iputils-20150815 is "masked for testing" in profiles/package.mask; however, net-misc/iputils-20150815-r1 (which only introduced libressl support) is not masked. If you still want this package version to be masked, please update package.mask to ~net-misc/iputils-20150815. @hasufell: Please check the mask status of packages while doing libressl revbumps (or any non-maintainer ebuild changes, for that matter).
(In reply to Luis Ressel from comment #0) > @hasufell: Please check the mask status of packages while doing libressl > revbumps (or any non-maintainer ebuild changes, for that matter). https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=805b0f0e12ca4072fdbf28d3cafc0308cc32b723 Or people could just use a less broken string in p.mask. I'll leave it to the maintainer if he wants to re-add the mask for every single revision bump.
(In reply to Julian Ospald (hasufell) from comment #1) > (In reply to Luis Ressel from comment #0) > > @hasufell: Please check the mask status of packages while doing libressl > > revbumps (or any non-maintainer ebuild changes, for that matter). > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/ > ?id=805b0f0e12ca4072fdbf28d3cafc0308cc32b723 > > Or people could just use a less broken string in p.mask. I'll leave it to > the maintainer if he wants to re-add the mask for every single revision bump. There was noting broken with the mask string. It's not base-system's business to create mask strings that covers each enevtuality where some non base-system dev touches base-system packages without getting prior permission to do so...
(In reply to Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C) from comment #2) > > There was noting broken with the mask string. It's not base-system's > business to create mask strings that covers each enevtuality where some non > base-system dev touches base-system packages without getting prior > permission to do so... I'll keep in mind to ask for permissions for the rest of the ~400 packages that need to be fixed. I'll probably be done by 2025 then, since there are so many people eager to help. Also see the ML where it was _announced_ that this will happen without asking every single maintainer, unless the package is non-trivial (e.g. mysql) or needs patching. No one raised his voice against it. Also, this happened in ~arch. No stable package was ever touched.
