| 1 |
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 10:47, Joshua Schmidlkofer wrote: |
| 2 |
> So, WFM [works for me], hope it's useful to others. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> In any case, this is a resend of the script, since I got some |
| 5 |
> ambiguous 'blocked message' errors, I put it up on my website, and |
| 6 |
> left it for all: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Secure: https://embassy.asylumware.com/projects/asylumware/wiki/bastard |
| 9 |
> Plain: http://embassy.asylumware.com/projects/asylumware/wiki/bastard |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
# emerge -vp =gnome-2.14* |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Calculating dependencies |
| 16 |
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "=gnome-2.14*" have been masked. |
| 17 |
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request: |
| 18 |
- gnome-base/gnome-2.14.0 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) |
| 19 |
# John N. Laliberte <allanonjl@g.o> (12 Mar 2006) |
| 20 |
# GNOME 2.14 mask. You must follow instructions here: |
| 21 |
# http://d.g.o/~allanonjl/gnome/2.13/adding.from.overlay.txt |
| 22 |
# for adding files from our overlay. |
| 23 |
#Most of these packages will break/not compile because of eclass |
| 24 |
#changes that won't be made until every package is in the tree. |
| 25 |
#Don't unmask these and don't file bugs for them |
| 26 |
# Start GNOME 2.14 mask |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Did you the read comments here (d.g.o refers to dev.gentoo.org in case anyone |
| 29 |
is wondering)? I most certainly wouldn't go ahead and unmask any package with |
| 30 |
that kind of explanation why it was masked in the first place. What bothers |
| 31 |
me about this, however, is not the fact that you did unmask it but rather the |
| 32 |
fact the you leave a script here which is supposed to be able to unmask and |
| 33 |
unkeyword any package without giving any kind of warnings about this. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
IMHO any script that is made public and which does what your script is doing |
| 36 |
should print out the reason why each package it unmasks was originally masked |
| 37 |
and perhaps even ask for confirmation. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Also I think it is a bit amusing that running your script without any |
| 40 |
arguments tells me that I should include the versioned name of any package |
| 41 |
that I want unmasked/unkeyworded. And then giving any kind of argument(s) |
| 42 |
makes it unmask/unkeyword gnome-2.14*. Without checking the argument(s) that |
| 43 |
I gave. I know.. it's just a minor bug. I also think (without knowing it) |
| 44 |
that it will in fact work for most packages when that minor bug is |
| 45 |
corrected. ;) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
It does, however, work for gnome-2.14.0 and it does add a LOT of lines to |
| 48 |
package.keyword and package.mask. E.g. media-libs/gst-plugins-base adds five |
| 49 |
lines to package.keyword i.e. version 0.10.0 to 0.10.4 on a line each. I |
| 50 |
don't think the results will ever differ on the first two version numbers so |
| 51 |
I think the optimal solution for this would be to just add version 0.10*. I'm |
| 52 |
not sure that it will never differ though. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Just for the record I am not trying to offend you here. This is supposed to be |
| 55 |
constructive critisism. ;) |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Bo Andresen |
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives