| 1 |
yes but what if you're working on a newer version of a package |
| 2 |
that is currently masked ? if you keep the ebuild in your local |
| 3 |
portage dir, but its getting masked ... |
| 4 |
in other words, PORTAGE_OVERLAY should not be affected |
| 5 |
by the package.mask |
| 6 |
-mike |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
----- Original Message ----- |
| 9 |
From: "Jon Nelson" <jnelson@×××××××.net> |
| 10 |
To: "Jonathan Kelly" <j0n@×××××××.au> |
| 11 |
Cc: <gentoo-dev@g.o> |
| 12 |
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 12:26 |
| 13 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 16:57:34 +1000 |
| 17 |
> Jonathan Kelly <j0n@×××××××.au> wrote: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> > > It would make sense (to me anyway) if the local ebuilds in |
| 20 |
> > > $PORTDIR_OVERLAY were *NOT* checked against packages.mask, that way us |
| 21 |
> .. |
| 22 |
> > I think that is a logical and great idea. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I disgree. I think it's a hack that doesn't really solve the problem at |
| 25 |
> hand, which is "supplementary" package masking, using the package |
| 26 |
> mask in /usr/portage as the 'canonical' package mask and then using |
| 27 |
> a second package mask to over ride that. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> PORTDIR_OVERLAY is there for just one reason, to provide *local* |
| 30 |
> ebuilds. If the behavior of ebuilds is different here, that is an |
| 31 |
> inferred behavior and not a logical one. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> package masking and ebuilds are separate, keep their interfaces |
| 34 |
> separate. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> -- |
| 37 |
> Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Jon Nelson <jnelson@×××××××.net> |
| 40 |
> C and Python Code Gardener |
| 41 |
> _______________________________________________ |
| 42 |
> gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 43 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o |
| 44 |
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |
| 45 |
> |
Archives