| 1 |
On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:22:05 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Wouldn't this be like putting package.* back to a file instead of a |
| 4 |
> directory tho? That would seem like one step forward and two steps |
| 5 |
> back. Maybe I am missing something again. I sort of got some "issues" |
| 6 |
> going on around here. :/ |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
No, the discussion is about the name of the file in package.unmask. if |
| 9 |
that is a file there is no issue. The problem is that portage just picks |
| 10 |
a file from that directory, it should either have its own file in there or |
| 11 |
add the entries to a file named after the package. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
-- |
| 15 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
An unemployed Court Jester is nobody's fool. |
Archives