| 1 |
on Tuesday 03/27/2007 Neil Bothwick(neil@××××××××××.uk) wrote |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:08:37 -0400, John covici wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > > So what makes you think portage is ignoring them? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Well, two things, -- I was trying to emerge a package which had a |
| 7 |
> > higher version in the overlay and which I had put in my |
| 8 |
> > /etc/portage/package.keywords file, but I got a reinstall of the |
| 9 |
> > existing package instead. And second when it was working after the |
| 10 |
> > rebuild info it would say [1] <overlay directory> |
| 11 |
> > [2] <another overlay directory> but it is not saying that now. Am I |
| 12 |
> > missing something here? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> This would also happen if your package.keywords entry was incorrect. eix, |
| 15 |
> after running update-eix, should indicate overlay packages, even when |
| 16 |
> they have the same version number as in the main portage tree. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
OK, well I am getting interesting results -- when I did this before I |
| 19 |
took all the packages in the overlay tree and simply put ~x86 after |
| 20 |
each one and put each line in /etc/portage/package.keywords -- there |
| 21 |
were 1 or two which I had to put in package.unmask, but generally this |
| 22 |
worked. Now, according to eix, the packages are now masked not just |
| 23 |
by keyword, so I would have to put them all in package.unmask. I |
| 24 |
wonder what happened to change this? And portage does not tell you |
| 25 |
that you have a package which is masked even in verbose mode -- should |
| 26 |
it do so? It does tell you if its by keyword, but not by package.mask |
| 27 |
somewhere. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: |
| 32 |
How do |
| 33 |
you spend it? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
John Covici |
| 36 |
covici@××××××××××.com |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives