| 1 |
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
So, |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in |
| 10 |
FEATURES: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
$ emerge --info | grep FEATURES |
| 13 |
FEATURES="assume-digests binpkg-logs buildsyspkg collision-protect |
| 14 |
distlocks ebuild-locks fixlafiles fixpackages metadata-transfer news |
| 15 |
parallel-fetch preserve-libs protect-owned sandbox sfperms strict |
| 16 |
unknown-features-warn unmerge-logs unmerge-orphans userfetch userpriv |
| 17 |
usersandbox usersync" |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> > I'm a sysadmin, I have an inherent distrust of all things |
| 21 |
> > software and automagic-config-changers are scary things indeed |
| 22 |
> > :-) |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> autounmask doesn't actually do anything, it only tells you what |
| 25 |
> should be added to /etc/portage/package.use. You need to use |
| 26 |
> autounmask-write for that, which doesn't play nicely if package.use |
| 27 |
> is a directory[1]. However, it does respect the --ask flag, making |
| 28 |
> it safe for all but the most paranoid BOFHs (no names Alan) to use. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> [1] It writes to a file of its choosing in that directory, with no |
| 31 |
> regard to its relevance. I'd prefer it to write to something like |
| 32 |
> packagename.autounmasked or even just packagename as it adds a |
| 33 |
> comment to the file to explain the content. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, still sounds like something that should be banned. For |
| 36 |
me at least. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives