| 1 |
On 27/11/17 20:44, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/27/2017 03:37 PM, Arve Barsnes wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Sounds kind of weird? If he has keyworded the game package, shouldn't it |
| 4 |
>> just never install that version if it depends on an unstable package? |
| 5 |
> That's right, but if there are two available ~arch versions, one of |
| 6 |
> which has all stable dependencies and (the newer) one of which has all |
| 7 |
> ~arch dependencies, then portage will try to install the newer one and |
| 8 |
> tell you to keyword a million things -- even though it could install the |
| 9 |
> first one with less hassle. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> For example, if you're on a system with no ruby packages, then it's the |
| 12 |
> difference between having to keyword 10 packages for rails-x.y.z versus |
| 13 |
> 200 packages for rails-x.y.(z+1). I'd rather have the slightly older |
| 14 |
> version that requires less configuration. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
You might achieve something with one of the new |
| 18 |
"autounmask-keep-keywords" -type parameters to portage .. although YMMV, |
| 19 |
etc ... |
Archives