| 1 |
Neil Bothwick <neil <at> digimed.co.uk> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> You may fond that it was masked for a good reason, or you may find that |
| 5 |
> it works fine for you. Check /usr/portage/profile/package.mask for the |
| 6 |
> reason for masking. In this case it simply says masked for testing, which |
| 7 |
> I tend to take as an invitation to test :) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Hello Neil, |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
OK, I see this along with the date from October of 06: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
# Luis Medinas <metalgod@g.o> (28 Oct 2006) |
| 15 |
# Mask dhcdbd and NetworkManager for testing |
| 16 |
# Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o> (04 Nov 2006) |
| 17 |
# Rename NetworkManager to networkmanager for consistency. |
| 18 |
net-misc/dhcdbd |
| 19 |
net-misc/networkmanager |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
But the aforemenntioned bugzilla issues are since this date. Reading |
| 23 |
them makes consider this package to be a time sink...... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If it's ready for testing shouldn't it be (~) masked and not (M) masked? |
| 26 |
If not, what the meaning of masking with (~) versus (M) ? |
| 27 |
Point me to the docs that I need to brush up on, as I rarely |
| 28 |
consider a package if it's (M) masked. The few I have tried, not |
| 29 |
one ever compiled. I'll look in this file |
| 30 |
(/usr/portage/profile/package.mask) in the future. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
That said, as soon as I get a second system with 802.11 working, |
| 34 |
I'll unmask it and give it a shot. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
thanks, |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
James |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives