| 1 |
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 00:14:01 +0200, n952162@×××.de wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Fundamentally, autounmask seems like something I don't want to do, at |
| 4 |
> all. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Why do you think that? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> What happens if I just remove zz-autounmask? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
any USE flag changes required by installed ebuilds will be cancelled. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> What do I have to emerge to find out? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
emerge --ask --newuse --update ~world - it will almost certainly complain |
| 15 |
and want to to add unmask entries. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> I currently have: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> $ cat /etc/portage/package.use/zz-autounmask |
| 20 |
> >=dev-lang/python-2.7.14-r1:2.7 sqlite |
| 21 |
> >=sys-libs/zlib-1.2.11-r1 minizip |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> And, I thought unmasking was related to keywords - allowing or not |
| 24 |
> allowing experimental versions ... why is that |
| 25 |
> in /etc/portage/package.use? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That's keyword masking - although I agree that the choice of terminology |
| 28 |
here is a little confusing. autounmask can apply to keywords too, it is a |
| 29 |
generic concept for when portage needs configuration changes in order to |
| 30 |
satisfy the requirements of ebuilds. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
C: (n.) the language following A and B. The world still awaits D and |
| 37 |
E. By Z, it may be acceptable for general use. |
Archives