Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Kurt V. Hindenburg" <khindenburg@××××××××××××.net>
To: Stanislav Brabec <utx@g.o>, Christian Aust <christian@××××××××××.de>
Cc: Gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:26:21
Message-Id: 200306101902.43759.khindenburg@cherrynebula.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask by Stanislav Brabec
1 On Tuesday 10 June 2003 3:21 am, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
2 | V Po, 09. 06. 2003 v 22:56, Christian Aust napsal:
3 | > I'm not sure if gentoo actually lacks this feature, but how can I
4 | > permanently accept ebuilds that are marked unstable,
5 |
6 | It does not lack, probably only does not document it:
7 |
8 | mkdir -p /etc/portage
9 | echo "sys-devel/gcc" >>/etc/portage/package.unmask
10
11 Doesn't work here... or did you mean something else?
12
13 % cat /etc/portage/package.unmask
14 app-crypt/cryptplug
15
16 % emerge -Up $(qpkg -I -nc)
17 >>> --upgradeonly implies --update... adding --update to options.
18
19 These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
20
21 Calculating dependencies /
22 !!! all ebuilds that could satisfy "app-crypt/cryptplug" have been
23 masked.
24
25 !!! Error calculating dependencies. Please correct.
26
27
28 --
29
30 Kurt
31 ---
32 There is no good and evil; there is only power.
33
34
35 --
36 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask Alastair Tse <liquidx@g.o>