1 |
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 16:40:51 James wrote: |
2 |
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon <at> gmail.com> writes: |
3 |
> > > This is my (mis)conception, although, as you have suggest, |
4 |
> > > there are (gentoo) cultural norms that do suggest |
5 |
> > > certain boolean operations should not be used, |
6 |
> > > in say for example, package.keywords? |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > That's more just a safeguard against forgetting you put it there than |
9 |
> > anything else |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Good to know. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> > The vast majority of cases will use only the "=" operator or nothing. |
14 |
> > That's so you unmask the one version you are interested in, not |
15 |
> > everything from here on out, including every buggy, pre-release and just |
16 |
> > plain broken version that happens to have an ebuild. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> So entries in package.keywords should just have the ~ in front of them? |
19 |
> No point in using other boolean operations in the package.keywords file? |
20 |
|
21 |
I personally have never used other operators. But Murphy says that as soon as |
22 |
I say there's no need for them, someone will come along and prove me wrong :-) |
23 |
|
24 |
It's not a bad thing to have all operators be valid syntax, then you (the |
25 |
admin) can choose what you actually need |
26 |
|
27 |
> > The use-case for no operator is mostly for the case where you run say a |
28 |
> > stable box, and want the latest of a specific well-known package. You |
29 |
> > might want the latest Qt for example. Another example is -svn ebuilds - |
30 |
> > enlightenment is a case in point. The snapshots are always out of date, |
31 |
> > latest svn is pretty stable, so one must unmask everything to get the |
32 |
> > -9999 versions |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Ok, now you just tossed my little (pee brain) around quite significantly... |
35 |
> Your saying that not operator will get me the -9999 (SVN) version |
36 |
> of a package?And that this is most likely the most stable because |
37 |
> the devs/hacks work on it often? |
38 |
|
39 |
I cheat and just do this: |
40 |
|
41 |
x11-wm/enlightenment * ~* ** |
42 |
|
43 |
But enlightenment is a special case. e17 has never had a release (snapshots |
44 |
that are known to build are not considered releases) and the majority of users |
45 |
simply check out and build the latest commits in svn. The way the ebuilds are |
46 |
versioned, enlightenment-9999 gets you the latest in svn. |
47 |
|
48 |
That's a pretty normal gentoo convention |
49 |
|
50 |
> |
51 |
> If so then lets put it to the test. |
52 |
> Maybee app-arch/xz-utils ? |
53 |
> so my entry in /etc/portage/package.keywords should look like this: |
54 |
> |
55 |
> app-arch/xz-utils |
56 |
> Nothing I tried in either package.keywords or package.unmask |
57 |
> make the app-arch/xz-utils-9999 (SVN) version available. |
58 |
> |
59 |
> |
60 |
> So what did I miss? |
61 |
|
62 |
You need to put a mask after the package name - *, ~* or **. The default is to |
63 |
use your current ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. |
64 |
|
65 |
* removes masking keywords if the package is stable on your arch |
66 |
~* removes masking keywords if the package is stable on any arch |
67 |
** removes masking keywords for the package unconditionally |
68 |
|
69 |
-- |
70 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |