| 1 |
On 12:39 Wed 13 Jul , Holly Bostick wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> What does which profile it is have to do with the mask? |
| 4 |
> /etc/portage/package.unmask unmasks hard-masked applications on the |
| 5 |
> profile you are using-- the profile supercedes all later adjustment |
| 6 |
> files, insofar as all later adjustment files (/etc/make.conf, |
| 7 |
> /etc/portage/whatever) all refer to the profile defaults to know what to |
| 8 |
> adjust. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
1) This has nothing to do with masked packages, it's about masked use |
| 12 |
flags. |
| 13 |
2) packages can be masked by profile (as can use flags). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Obviously -- or at least it seems obvious to me, but that doesn't say |
| 16 |
> much-- that if the package is hard-masked, the USE flag that is |
| 17 |
> associated with it will be disabled (because the package the USE flag |
| 18 |
> would call is unavailable). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Maybe, but that's not the way portage works these things out |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Dave |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives