| 1 |
On 23 March 2018 at 14:27, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> It sounds to me that one of the intended behaviors is to tell portage |
| 3 |
> that for a particular package we want to ignore a particular |
| 4 |
> repository entirely. Suppose for example an overlay contains |
| 5 |
> misc/foo-3, and the main repo introduces misc/foo-4. Perhaps we want |
| 6 |
> portage to stick with foo-3 from the overlay. However, if the overlay |
| 7 |
> adds foo-4, or foo-4.1 we want this installed. A version mask would |
| 8 |
> not really cover this use case. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> IMO this sounds like a useful feature. Having it in profiles could |
| 11 |
> probably also be useful in some testing scenarios, such as when making |
| 12 |
> changes to a large number of packages that are already in the main |
| 13 |
> tree (think something analogous to a feature branch in git, where the |
| 14 |
> master branch continues to advance). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is possible already in package.mask? |
| 17 |
If the mask is not permanent (for testing, as you mention), would |
| 18 |
there be any benefit in having it in profile instead? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Putting misc/foo::gentoo in package.mask works fine either way. |
| 21 |
Probably <misc/foo-4::gentoo works as well, for your scenario above. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I use this for the opposite scenario, I have */*::overlay in |
| 24 |
package.mask, and unmask only a particular package in package.unmask, |
| 25 |
to avoid bringing in a lot of overlay packages without having a |
| 26 |
particular need. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Arve |
Archives