1 |
Op zo 18-08-2002, om 08:57 schreef Jonathan Kelly: |
2 |
> On 18 Aug 2002 16:31:21 +1000 |
3 |
> Troy Dack <troy@××××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 14:04, Jonathan Kelly wrote: |
6 |
> > > I beg to differ ... I did this with media-gfx/povray and after every |
7 |
> > > "emerge sync" I get .... |
8 |
> > > # emerge -pu povray |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > My apologies, I thought that the local ebuilds were NOT checked against |
11 |
> > packages.mask. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > I've just tried the same thing as you, with the same results. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > It would make sense (to me anyway) if the local ebuilds in |
16 |
> > $PORTDIR_OVERLAY were *NOT* checked against packages.mask, that way us |
17 |
> > end users could assist the developers by simply dropping masked ebuilds |
18 |
> > into our local tree and then testing them. Sure it means that there is |
19 |
> > duplication and some extra hard drive space taken up, but ebuilds aren't |
20 |
> > that big. Also for those wishing to test ebuilds it would be a |
21 |
> > conscious decision to place a masked ebuild in your local tree. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I think that is a logical and great idea. |
24 |
|
25 |
Wouldn't it also be nice if settings in |
26 |
$PORTDIR_OVERLAY/profiles/package.mask overrule settings in |
27 |
$PORTDIR/profiles/package.mask ? This way directories could stay in |
28 |
$PORTDIR and you don't have to keep worrying about changin' package.mask |
29 |
time & time again. |
30 |
|
31 |
Ex: |
32 |
|
33 |
lappy # diff /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask |
34 |
/root/package.mask.2|grep povray |
35 |
|
36 |
< #=media-gfx/povray-3.50a |
37 |
> =media-gfx/povray-3.50a |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
Just a thought, |
41 |
|
42 |
Rigo |
43 |
|
44 |
> |
45 |
> Cheers. |
46 |
> Jonathan Kelly. |
47 |
> _______________________________________________ |
48 |
> gentoo-dev mailing list |
49 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o |
50 |
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |