| 1 |
I believe I know the answer to the question... the real question is, |
| 2 |
how can I work around it? ;) |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
I am running the development branch of www-client/chromium (currently |
| 5 |
8.0.552.0). As a result, I like the latest builds to always be unmasked |
| 6 |
when they are available. However, once in a while there is a bad apple |
| 7 |
in the bunch and I'd like to mask that atom specifically. 8.0.552.0 is |
| 8 |
one of those that I would like masked. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
What I'd like to do is: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
/etc/portage/package.unmask: |
| 13 |
www-client/chromium |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
/etc/portage/package.mask: |
| 16 |
=www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0 |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
This case shows that, in fact, the mask comes first, as the atom in |
| 19 |
question is definitely unmasked in that scenario. I have tried putting |
| 20 |
either line into /etc/portage/profile/package.mask or .unmask, to no effect. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I know I could do this by putting noninclusive comparative statements in |
| 23 |
.unmask, ala: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
<www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0 |
| 26 |
>www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
But this seems somewhat clumsy to me. Does anyone know a trick to do |
| 29 |
what I'm looking for? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-Andy |
Archives