| 1 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:34:41 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Seriously, Do you know why emacs-24 is masked like that? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> What little I know of Ulrich Mueller is that he is quite a stalwart |
| 8 |
>> fellow and not much would get by him. I guess its just that its the |
| 9 |
>> cvs version eh? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Yes, CVS ebuilds are generally masked as they are too good a means of |
| 12 |
> breaking things to be installed without manual unmasking. Copy the mask |
| 13 |
> line to /etc/portage/package.unmask/emacs to see if it breaks for you. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No, no apparent problems. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
But didn't we used to get `emacs-cvs' unmasked just with ~<ARCH>. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Before it changed to emacs-vcs... I don't recall having to manually |
| 20 |
unmask it that way. |
Archives