Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Marineau <marineam@×××××××××.edu>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage.
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:29:58
2 Hash: SHA1
4 I have a couple questions about why portage handles masked packages.
6 First of all, when a specific masked package is emerged (usually a ~mask) and
7 it is depended on by another package emerge -UD world will fail because of the
8 masked dependency. This can be avoided by specifically unmasking the package,
9 but that can be a bit tedious if this situation is a common occurrence.
10 Failing seems the right thing to do if the masked package is not already
11 installed, but if the package is already installed it would make sense to me
12 that portage realizes that the dependency is already met and not die.
14 Another thought that I made a comment on in the GLEP 19 thread is that if a
15 package is removed from the portage tree, later when upgrading another the user
16 will be forced to upgrade(or downgrade if upgrades are masked) that package to,
17 even if they wanted to keep the existing version. To get around this the user
18 must save the old ebuild to their portage overly. I think it would make more
19 sense to let the existing set of installed packages behave as another portage
20 overly so that it is easy to hold on existing packages. This would also avoid
21 any accidental downgrades if a package was ~arch masked, but then removed from
22 portage in favor of a newer version.
24 - --
25 Michael Marineau
26 marineam@×××××××××.edu
27 Oregon State University
29 Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
31 iD8DBQFBAZ8XiP+LossGzjARAtEnAKDAzLbSJkL64rUZKro2vr7jJ8BFvgCfckVT
32 cBVQ4B93E00kfBLx1hFz/E0=
33 =iDdF
34 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
36 --
37 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage. Michael Marineau <marineam@×××××××××.edu>