| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:43:36 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>>> Then again, that is yet another option to have to remember too. |
| 6 |
>>>> Jeez. |
| 7 |
>>>> |
| 8 |
>>> That's why we have EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS :) |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> Yea but I don't always want it to unmask packages either. If I was |
| 12 |
>> going to let that be the default, |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> I thought we were talking about a switch to set the filename to use. That |
| 15 |
> could be set to a default without turning on autounmask-write. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> I may as well run ~amd64. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
> That does seem a simpler approach, but this is about unmasking, not just |
| 21 |
> keywording. autounmask is useful to those running ~arch too. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Wouldn't this be like putting package.* back to a file instead of a |
| 28 |
directory tho? That would seem like one step forward and two steps |
| 29 |
back. Maybe I am missing something again. I sort of got some "issues" |
| 30 |
going on around here. :/ |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I just sort of like the way autounmask did it. It has its drawbacks to |
| 33 |
tho. If you unmask something and there is a package in the file that |
| 34 |
you wouldn't think is related, good luck finding that later on when you |
| 35 |
have a lot of files in there. Needle in the haystack comes to mind. I |
| 36 |
guess that is when grep or something comes in to the rescue. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
To many options sometimes. o_O |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Dale |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
:-) :-) |
Archives