Re: [gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage.

[Michael Marineau]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael Marineau wrote:
| I have a couple questions about why portage handles masked packages.
oops, typo.  *how* portage handles masked packages.
|
| First of all, when a specific masked package is emerged (usually a
| ~mask) and
| it is depended on by another package emerge -UD world will fail because
| of the
| masked dependency.  This can be avoided by specifically unmasking the
| package,
| but that can be a bit tedious if this situation is a common occurrence.
| Failing seems the right thing to do if the masked package is not already
| installed, but if the package is already installed it would make sense
| to me
| that portage realizes that the dependency is already met and not die.
|
| Another thought that I made a comment on in the GLEP 19 thread is that if a
| package is removed from the portage tree, later when upgrading another
| the user
| will be forced to upgrade(or downgrade if upgrades are masked) that
| package to,
| even if they wanted to keep the existing version.  To get around this
| the user
| must save the old ebuild to their portage overly.  I think it would make
| more
| sense to let the existing set of installed packages behave as another
| portage
| overly so that it is easy to hold on existing packages.  This would also
| avoid
| any accidental downgrades if a package was ~arch masked, but then
| removed from
| portage in favor of a newer version.
|
| --
| Michael Marineau
| marineam@×××××××××.edu
| Oregon State University

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBAaIpiP+LossGzjARAhebAKDEQYeGEfsEsgDBr66xLqHpeaeOiACgmGTx
pMKIi6cooDr7Rlr4euV10UE=
=hFrN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list