Re: [gentoo-user] bastard.sh - mass unmasker/keywords utility

[Joshua Schmidlkofer]

>  # emerge -vp =gnome-2.14*
>
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>
> Calculating dependencies
> !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "=gnome-2.14*" have been masked.
> !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request:
> - gnome-base/gnome-2.14.0 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword)
> # John N. Laliberte <allanonjl@g.o> (12 Mar 2006)
> # GNOME 2.14 mask. You must follow instructions here:
> # http://d.g.o/~allanonjl/gnome/2.13/adding.from.overlay.txt
> # for adding files from our overlay.
> #Most of these packages will break/not compile because of eclass
> #changes that won't be made until every package is in the tree.
> #Don't unmask these and don't file bugs for them
> # Start GNOME 2.14 mask
>
> Did you the read comments here (d.g.o refers to dev.gentoo.org in case anyone
> is wondering)? I most certainly wouldn't go ahead and unmask any package with
> that kind of explanation why it was masked in the first place. What bothers
> me about this, however, is not the fact that you did unmask it but rather the
> fact the you leave a script here which is supposed to be able to unmask and
> unkeyword any package without giving any kind of warnings about this.

Yeah, so? *crickets*  Thanks, the d.g.o. was pretty clear, but I can
imagine that confusing people, the referenced document was next to
useless, did you read it?

> IMHO any script that is made public and which does what your script is doing
> should print out the reason why each package it unmasks was originally masked
> and perhaps even ask for confirmation.

I'm not a baby sitter, and we are using Linux.  However, due to your
concerns I will put in a warning, and add that as a TODO on my page. 
Furthermore, I have no idea what concerns you really have here. 
Nothing will format thier FS, it may Break Their Gentoo(tm).  I can
imagine all sort of evil here.  However, since I am only marginally
assist them, if they do something stupid, it's their own fault.

> Also I think it is a bit amusing that running your script without any
> arguments tells me that I should include the versioned name of any package
> that I want unmasked/unkeyworded. And then giving any kind of argument(s)
> makes it unmask/unkeyword gnome-2.14*. Without checking the argument(s) that
> I gave. I know.. it's just a minor bug. I also think (without knowing it)
> that it will in fact work for most packages when that minor bug is
> corrected. ;)

heh, thanks, It was very late last night, and I uploaded the wrong
version of the script, however, apart from the bugfix I added a
warning to keep people happy.

> It does, however, work for gnome-2.14.0 and it does add a LOT of lines to
> package.keyword and package.mask. E.g. media-libs/gst-plugins-base adds five
> lines to package.keyword i.e. version 0.10.0 to 0.10.4 on a line each. I
> don't think the results will ever differ on the first two version numbers so
> I think the optimal solution for this would be to just add version 0.10*. I'm
> not sure that it will never differ though.

Actually, that was one of my TODO items.  I think that there should be
two options, -L for latest and the default behaviour of more
conservative to pick the earliest package and install that.  Can you
submit a patch?

> Just for the record I am not trying to offend you here. This is supposed to be
> constructive critisism. ;)

Oh, I am not to worried about what other people think, and I never
pictured a warning being needed.  SO, hey, it was probably good for
someone.


Sorry for typos - babies are screaming =).

Sincerley,
   Joshua

-- 
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list