| 1 |
"Poison BL." <poisonbl@×××××.com> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> With the understanding that changes between the version it's asking |
| 4 |
> for and what you've built on your end (which probably should be done |
| 5 |
> with a custom ebuild when it impacts as many things as emacs tends to) |
| 6 |
> might well break whatever's trying to use it, you can use |
| 7 |
> package.provided to convince portage that whatever dependency it's |
| 8 |
> looking for is already in place. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Ahh there is the bit I was fumbling to remember. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
package.provided |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
OK, so in this case would I tell portage I am providing the emacs |
| 15 |
version its pulling in? ie app-editors/emacs-24.4-r1 |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
man portage section on package.provided doesn't make it very clear |
| 18 |
what should actually go in there. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The example for telling portage user will manage 2.6 kernel: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
sys-kernel/development-sources-2.6.7 |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
But what portage is asking for is app-editors/emacs-24.4-r1 |
| 25 |
So I'm guessing to tell portage to not worry about that version or any |
| 26 |
newer one: |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Something like: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
>=app-editors/emacs-24 |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
If that the proper syntax? |
Archives