| 1 |
On 28/03/2017 04:12, tuxic@××××××.de wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I want to mark some software as provided from other sources. |
| 5 |
> And want to prevent long comments from emerge and friends about |
| 6 |
> my doing so. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> /etc/portage/profile/package.provided seems to be a good place for |
| 9 |
> that...but according to the documents, one needs to specifiy a version |
| 10 |
> and relational operators are not allowed...which make me think that |
| 11 |
> I have to mention any single version in past, current and future |
| 12 |
> existence to prevent emerge from installing a previous or current |
| 13 |
> version of that software for a longer time. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Thinking of some packages, which are getting updates very often I |
| 16 |
> see myself writing scripts to populate package.provided with a |
| 17 |
> lot of stuff and scripts to delete obsoleted entries from there. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> If I put those packages into package.mask, emerge comments on |
| 20 |
> every update of the system, that "needed packages are masked". |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Is there any clean way to get out of this? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Yes, don't do it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
package.provided is a horrible ugly hack to work behind portage's back |
| 28 |
and subvert it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
What are these packages and why do you feel this solution is warranted? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
If you really don't like some in-tree version of a package, rather spend |
| 33 |
your time writing a local ebuild in an overlay than conjuring up |
| 34 |
invisible magic scripts that are certain to break into millions of shiny |
| 35 |
pieces |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 39 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives