Re: [gentoo-dev] Why no local mask override?

[mike]

solutions are being worked on to address.  so the answer is
'its not done' ;)
-mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Luke Maurer" <maurerl@××××××××.edu>
To: <gentoo-dev@g.o>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 11:17
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Why no local mask override?


> I've whined about this before, but failed to get a cohesive explanation.
> Why is there no easy way to override the package mask? Why not even
> anything as simple as a --nomask option? Sure, there are workarounds,
> but most posts about them admit they are "nasty," "dirty," or "kludges."
> Why is there no /etc/package.unmask (along with an /etc/package.mask,
> for that matter)? If it's to protect people from their mistakes ...
> that's rather futile, as it only forces them to turn to black magic (or
> tedious editing and re-editing) to use the emerges *they* *want.* Isn't
> this supposed to be the most customizable Linux distro around?
>
> </rant>
>
> Jyrinx
> jyrinx_list@××××××××××.com
>
> P.S. The problem with difficult unmasking is exacerbated by the fact
> that some of the masking is overzealous; for instance, if one is running
> GNOME 2 but using some GNOME 1.4 apps (i.e. one is running GNOME 2), and
> one wants them to have a nice GTK1 theme, one has to unmask it, causing
> one great consternation and inspiring one to extensive rants on
> gentoo-dev. Unmasking should be something for exceptional, not common,
> cases.
>
> P.P.S. Also, Portage currently violates the standard filesystem
> hierarchy; there are /etc files that one mustn't change (i.e. express
> global state) and /usr/portage files that one is expected to fiddle with
> (i.e. express local state).
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@g.o
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
>