| 1 |
How exactly are you adding the applications to |
| 2 |
/etc/portage/profiles/package.mask? I found that adding |
| 3 |
>=net-www/apache-2.0.0 worked perfectly to keep apache at 1.x |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 08:10, Andrew Cowie wrote: |
| 8 |
> On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 20:32, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote: |
| 9 |
> > Andrew Cowie wrote: |
| 10 |
> > > I nosed around my system and discovered I don't have an /etc/portage. I |
| 11 |
> > > do have a /usr/portage of course, with a profiles/packages.mask in it. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > You have to create it yourself if you feel the need for it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Fair enough. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> What is the expected behaviour of /etc/portage/profiles? Is the content |
| 18 |
> of, say, /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask expected to be merged with |
| 19 |
> /etc/portage/profiles/package.mask by emerge when calculating |
| 20 |
> dependencies? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> [My experiments showed that this is not the behaviour that occurs - the |
| 23 |
> one I created in /etc/portage/profiles was ignored] |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I made the updates to package.mask in /usr/portage/profiles to "pin" |
| 26 |
> (good word for it, even if it is Debian in origin) MySql at < 4 and |
| 27 |
> Apache at < 2, but my concern is that the file in /usr/portage/profiles |
| 28 |
> gets updated whenever an emerge rsync is done, and so my changes were, |
| 29 |
> (as I expected) lost. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> I feel like I'm missing something here. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> AfC |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives