| 1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:29:36PM -0800, Tuan Van wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>Luis F. Araujo wrote: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>>>Hello everyone, |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>>A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised |
| 12 |
>>>about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>please adjust your script. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>>>=cat/foo-1.2 is valid even though foo-1.2 is no longer in the tree. I |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> |
| 22 |
>>looked at the top 4 line in your list, they are all valid entries. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
>yes, i imagine there are a bunch of these false positives ... you can |
| 27 |
>see the gcc-config mask is wrongly flagged for this reason |
| 28 |
>-mike |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
Yes, the script as you might already noticed only checks for specific |
| 32 |
ebuilds versions entries. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I will try to tweak a it a bit more so it could filter more properly |
| 35 |
the list. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Oh, and i am using a small interpreter i am writing for the script , |
| 38 |
so _many_ things are being proved here, so bear with me :-) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives