| 1 |
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:48:40 -0400, John covici wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > This would also happen if your package.keywords entry was incorrect. |
| 4 |
> > eix, after running update-eix, should indicate overlay packages, |
| 5 |
> > even when they have the same version number as in the main portage |
| 6 |
> > tree. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> OK, well I am getting interesting results -- when I did this before I |
| 9 |
> took all the packages in the overlay tree and simply put ~x86 after |
| 10 |
> each one and put each line in /etc/portage/package.keywords -- there |
| 11 |
> were 1 or two which I had to put in package.unmask, but generally this |
| 12 |
> worked. Now, according to eix, the packages are now masked not just |
| 13 |
> by keyword, so I would have to put them all in package.unmask. I |
| 14 |
> wonder what happened to change this? And portage does not tell you |
| 15 |
> that you have a package which is masked even in verbose mode -- should |
| 16 |
> it do so? It does tell you if its by keyword, but not by package.mask |
| 17 |
> somewhere. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Portage does tell you if the only available versions of a package are |
| 20 |
masked, otherwise it just gives you the latest available version. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It would really help if you gave some concrete information, such as the |
| 23 |
results of |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
eix somepkg |
| 26 |
emerge -pv somepkg |
| 27 |
grep -r somepkg /etc/portage |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to? |
Archives