| 1 |
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 11:32:22AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > is there a good reason to remove them, instead of masking? |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > If you like spending half a day masking hundreds and hundreds of |
| 5 |
> > packages using an inflated package.mask, then no, there's no good reason :) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The OP said "a couple of packages", so package.mask is the best bet. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Give OP the benefit of doubt that he might know what he is asking and |
| 10 |
why. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS is probably not the best way - if one of those |
| 13 |
> packages is in a DEPEND that is needed somewhere, portage will throw a hissy |
| 14 |
> fit about missing stuff. If masked, at least you get a parseable error message |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
# mv /usr/portage/dev-libs/apr /tmp/ |
| 17 |
# emerge -va apache |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Calculating dependencies... done! |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "=dev-libs/apr-1*". |
| 24 |
(dependency required by "www-servers/apache-2.2.10" [ebuild]) |
| 25 |
(dependency required by "apache" [argument]) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Does look like an informative message to me rather than a hissy fit. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Eray |
Archives