1 |
On 12 Jun 2009, at 20:59, Harry Putnam wrote: |
2 |
> ... |
3 |
> For something like this it seems way overkill to have a separate |
4 |
> custom /usr/local/portage where I build my own. Especially since I |
5 |
> find that whole process difficult and way overkill for this problem. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Further its something that will almost certainly be fixed soon and |
8 |
> won't be something I have to attend to again. |
9 |
|
10 |
If you think that's the case then just mask the current version of |
11 |
procmail in /etc/portage/package.mask & remerge procmail. An older |
12 |
version without this bug will be installed & when an updated version |
13 |
is available portage will install it automagically. |
14 |
|
15 |
I consider /usr/local/portage to be essential, because there's most |
16 |
always a package or three on my systems which I can't get through the |
17 |
regular tree, or which i wish to version bump myself. I don't consider |
18 |
this a hassle because I could create the updated ebuild with patch in |
19 |
a few minutes. |
20 |
|
21 |
Because I most always check some reference resources when I do this, I |
22 |
can't quickly explain to you how to maintain this tree yourself. I |
23 |
think the time it would take you to learn this would be well-spent, as |
24 |
I'm sure you'll eventually need to use a /usr/local/portage package |
25 |
again in the future. Like I say, once you know how, it becomes easy. |
26 |
But if you consider it a hassle, just mask the buggy version of |
27 |
procmail & forget about the problem. |
28 |
|
29 |
Stroller. |