| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:22:05 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Wouldn't this be like putting package.* back to a file instead of a |
| 6 |
>> directory tho? That would seem like one step forward and two steps |
| 7 |
>> back. Maybe I am missing something again. I sort of got some "issues" |
| 8 |
>> going on around here. :/ |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> No, the discussion is about the name of the file in package.unmask. if |
| 11 |
> that is a file there is no issue. The problem is that portage just picks |
| 12 |
> a file from that directory, it should either have its own file in there or |
| 13 |
> add the entries to a file named after the package. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I agree but it doesn't do that. Of course, as I described, having many |
| 19 |
files makes it difficult to find what file contains what too. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Dale |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
:-) :-) |
Archives