| 1 |
On 10/20/10 04:06:52, Andy Wilkinson wrote: |
| 2 |
> I believe I know the answer to the question... the real question is, |
| 3 |
> how can I work around it? ;) |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I am running the development branch of www-client/chromium (currently |
| 6 |
> 8.0.552.0). As a result, I like the latest builds to always be |
| 7 |
> unmasked |
| 8 |
> when they are available. However, once in a while there is a bad |
| 9 |
> apple |
| 10 |
> in the bunch and I'd like to mask that atom specifically. 8.0.552.0 |
| 11 |
> is |
| 12 |
> one of those that I would like masked. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> What I'd like to do is: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> /etc/portage/package.unmask: |
| 17 |
> www-client/chromium |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> /etc/portage/package.mask: |
| 20 |
> =www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0 |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> This case shows that, in fact, the mask comes first, as the atom in |
| 23 |
> question is definitely unmasked in that scenario. I have tried |
| 24 |
> putting |
| 25 |
> either line into /etc/portage/profile/package.mask or .unmask, to no |
| 26 |
> effect. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I know I could do this by putting noninclusive comparative statements |
| 29 |
> in |
| 30 |
> .unmask, ala: |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> <www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0 |
| 33 |
> >www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0 |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> But this seems somewhat clumsy to me. Does anyone know a trick to do |
| 36 |
> what I'm looking for? |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I usually comment out the line in package.unmask if I want the mask |
| 40 |
to be effective. A line in /etc/portage/package.unmask overrules a |
| 41 |
line in /etc/portage/package.mask . |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Helmut. |
Archives