| 1 |
I've whined about this before, but failed to get a cohesive explanation. |
| 2 |
Why is there no easy way to override the package mask? Why not even |
| 3 |
anything as simple as a --nomask option? Sure, there are workarounds, |
| 4 |
but most posts about them admit they are "nasty," "dirty," or "kludges." |
| 5 |
Why is there no /etc/package.unmask (along with an /etc/package.mask, |
| 6 |
for that matter)? If it's to protect people from their mistakes ... |
| 7 |
that's rather futile, as it only forces them to turn to black magic (or |
| 8 |
tedious editing and re-editing) to use the emerges *they* *want.* Isn't |
| 9 |
this supposed to be the most customizable Linux distro around? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
</rant> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Jyrinx |
| 14 |
jyrinx_list@××××××××××.com |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
P.S. The problem with difficult unmasking is exacerbated by the fact |
| 17 |
that some of the masking is overzealous; for instance, if one is running |
| 18 |
GNOME 2 but using some GNOME 1.4 apps (i.e. one is running GNOME 2), and |
| 19 |
one wants them to have a nice GTK1 theme, one has to unmask it, causing |
| 20 |
one great consternation and inspiring one to extensive rants on |
| 21 |
gentoo-dev. Unmasking should be something for exceptional, not common, |
| 22 |
cases. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
P.P.S. Also, Portage currently violates the standard filesystem |
| 25 |
hierarchy; there are /etc files that one mustn't change (i.e. express |
| 26 |
global state) and /usr/portage files that one is expected to fiddle with |
| 27 |
(i.e. express local state). |
Archives