| 1 |
On Saturday 18 October 2008 01:43:58 RYAN vAN GINNEKEN wrote: |
| 2 |
> As stated in my first post of this thread i have added these the the |
| 3 |
> /etc/portage/package.umask |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> ooops there it is named the file umask instead of unmask hehehe typo now |
| 6 |
> things are trying to build but i get this error |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> ANYWHO SHOULD I EVEN BE USING THESE dangerous looking packages ?? are there |
| 9 |
> some usb camera drivers that are stable that i could try please help!!! |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The usual answer is "try them and see what happens" |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Devs usually hard-mask packages for the following reasons (sort of in order of |
| 14 |
decreasing frequency) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
- the package will not build (stupid code) |
| 17 |
- the package depends on something else that is not in portage |
| 18 |
- the package is horribly buggy but seems to work sometimes |
| 19 |
- the package wreaks half of the other packages on your machine |
| 20 |
- the package is a developer testing version and you're not supposed to use it |
| 21 |
- the package breaks your hardware |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
the last one is extremely rare. So try those packages by all means, and note |
| 24 |
what happens at each step. If they really are unusable and you know your way |
| 25 |
around, it's not that hard to remove them. Irritating and time-consuming yes, |
| 26 |
but hard and dangerous no |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives