| 1 |
On 3/22/06, Antoine <melser.anton@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 22/03/06, hawat.thufir@×××××.com <hawat.thufir@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > So, masked packages only require that package.keyword be edited, but |
| 4 |
> > hardmasked packages also require that package.unmask be edited? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I see the sense in having different grades of unmasking, but not the need |
| 7 |
> > for two distinct files(?). |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> One file with syntax or two files without... |
| 11 |
> Cheers |
| 12 |
> Antoine |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> -- |
| 15 |
> This is where I should put some witty comment. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> -- |
| 18 |
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 19 |
.. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Ah, thanks, guys. I think that portage is approximately equal to yum |
| 22 |
in the PITA dept. With yum I was always having to hunt down new |
| 23 |
repositories, and periodically it'd fail for dependancy reasons. |
| 24 |
Portage is much easier to use, until something which is "needed" has |
| 25 |
to unmasked. Interesting, though :) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-Thufir |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives