Re: [gentoo-user] anti-portage wreckage?

[Mike Myers]

On 12/25/06, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <bss03@××××××××××.net> wrote:
>
> On Monday 25 December 2006 14:09, "Mike Myers" <fluffymikey@×××××.com>
> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] anti-portage wreckage?':
> > I understand the portage system enough to mask
> > the packages I don't want, but then there's the problem of other updates
> > requiring that package.
>
> Well, either (a) the new version is required, so you'll have to upgrade to
> the other package as well or (b) a developer was sloppy with dependencies,
> and you need to file a bug to change them.
>
> > Anyways, all I'm essentially asking for is a way to separate minor
> > updates from major updates.
>
> With some of the advanced atom operators (particularly '*' and '~'), you
> should be able to specify exactly what level of masking you want.  I
> believe this is documented in 'man ebuild' but I'm not sure; 'man portage'
> is a decent place to start your search for the atom syntax you need.
>
> You could also make your own profile that does "cap" packges at a certain
> version and have it's parent be an established profile, although I'm not
> sure that bit of portage hackery is supported.


I know these things could be done, but I don't really think it's worth it.
The problem is that these kinds of solutions don't scale very well.. they
don't really scale at all really.  If I have to reinstall for whatever
reason, then I have to redo all this hackery, as you put it, heh.  In any
case, this is still a bit of a reactive approach, since I have to be aware
that there may be a problem with a particular update before I know to mask
it.  I really like the idea of the tree version thing though.  I'll see if
there's anything I can do to support that.

PS:
> A: Because it reverses the order of the "conversation".
> Q: Why is top-posting so annoying?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What's the most annoying thing on newsgroups and mailing lists.


PS:
Noted!   Sorry :P