| 1 |
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:59:40 +0100 |
| 2 |
meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 3 |
> Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> [08-11-23 13:56]: |
| 4 |
> > meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > Yes, I know...the only thing I dont know is the name of the |
| 6 |
> > > flag, Sorry, if my satiric comment of my previous posting miss |
| 7 |
> > > its target ;) |
| 8 |
> ^ |
| 9 |
> My,Typo corrected |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > This is a sample of my file. This should help. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > root@smoker / # cat /etc/portage/package.unmask |
| 18 |
> > #>=app-pda/libopensync-0.36 |
| 19 |
> > >=dev-util/cmake-2.4.7 |
| 20 |
> > =kde-base/kitchensync-3.5.9-r1 |
| 21 |
> > =kde-base/ksysguard-3.5.9-r1 |
| 22 |
> > =net-print/foomatic-filters-3.0.20070501 |
| 23 |
> > =app-pda/libopensync-0.36 |
| 24 |
> > =app-cdr/cdrtools-2.01.01_alpha42 |
| 25 |
> > =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.25-r6 |
| 26 |
> > #=x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-177.13 |
| 27 |
> > =app-portage/udept-0.5.99.0.2.95-r1 |
| 28 |
> > =x11-apps/xinit-1.0.5-r2 |
| 29 |
> > <=app-portage/eix-0.13.5 |
| 30 |
> > =app-crypt/qca-1.0-r3 |
| 31 |
> > =app-cdr/cdrtools-2.01.01_alpha52 |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> > root@smoker / # |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > Note the ones with the number symbol are commented out and |
| 38 |
> > ignored by portage. Also, if you want to unmask without using |
| 39 |
> > the equal, or greater/less than signs, leave off the version |
| 40 |
> > number on the end. I'm not sure what you mean by a "flag"? |
| 41 |
> > |
| 42 |
> > That help? |
| 43 |
> > |
| 44 |
> > Dale |
| 45 |
> > |
| 46 |
> > :-) :-) |
| 47 |
> > |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> I know the unmask procedure as something like (for example) |
| 50 |
> kde-base/kitchensync ~x86 |
| 51 |
> in case of an ordinary intelish PC... |
| 52 |
> So, if unmasking without the ~x86 I will |
| 53 |
> try that. |
| 54 |
> mcc |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
There are two different types of masking that I think are being |
| 58 |
confused here. Keyword masking based on the various CPU |
| 59 |
architectures (x86, amd64, ppc etc. & the ~variants), and Package |
| 60 |
masking that masks a package across all archs, usually for |
| 61 |
stability or security reasons. Usually, the "All ebuilds that |
| 62 |
satisfy <blah> have been masked" will say either "(masked by: missing |
| 63 |
keyword)" or "(masked by: package.mask)". To unmask packages masked |
| 64 |
by missing keywords, you add a line to /etc/portage/package.keywords |
| 65 |
w/ the package atom & a list of keywords to accept for that package |
| 66 |
atom. To unmask packages masked by package.mask, you only need to |
| 67 |
add the package atom to /etc/portage/package.unmask. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
But in this specific case it's actually not a masking issue, it's a |
| 70 |
missing package issue as discussed in the other sub-thread. Arguably |
| 71 |
Portage should either not give the "All ebuilds have been masked" |
| 72 |
error, or should say something like "(masked by: no matching |
| 73 |
ebuilds)". |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
Hope you get it working, |
| 77 |
Conway S. Smith |
| 78 |
-- |
| 79 |
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all |
| 80 |
learned. (Bruce Ediger, bediger@××××××××.org, in comp.os.linux.misc, |
| 81 |
on X interfaces.) |
Archives