1 |
On Sunday 26 February 2006 18:15, Bo Andresen <bo.andresen@×××××.com> wrote |
2 |
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] What happens with masked packages?': |
3 |
> On Sunday 26 February 2006 21:40, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: |
4 |
> > > How exactly is is you want this to work. |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > My proposal at this point, would be for an additional restriction on |
7 |
> > packages based on a new UPSTREAM variable in the ebuild itself, |
8 |
> > ACCEPT_UPSTREAM variable in make.conf / the environment, and the |
9 |
> > package.upstream file in /etc/portage. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I read your previous posts about this as that you wanted it to be easier |
12 |
> to get beta versions but what you want is in fact the exact opposite - |
13 |
> further restriction. Now I get it. |
14 |
|
15 |
Well, it would make it easier by moving them /out/ of package.mask and |
16 |
putting them in a classification similar to KEYWORDS. Then, to get all |
17 |
the betas my heart desires I can simply set ACCEPT_UPSTREAM="BETA", |
18 |
instead of manually pawing through package.mask to add them all to |
19 |
package.unmask. |
20 |
|
21 |
In particular, I update my system regularly with emerge -avtuND world. |
22 |
This won't give me any notification that betas are available but masked. |
23 |
I'd like to configure my system so that any new betas of kaffeine, |
24 |
kmplayer, ktorrent, and the nsplugins for kaffeine and kmplayer would be |
25 |
installed with having to regularly check on them myself. |
26 |
|
27 |
I'm imaging the default provided by the base profile would be |
28 |
ACCEPT_UPSTREAM="RELEASE BUG_FIX SECURITY_FIX" so that packages with |
29 |
UPSTREAM="BETA" (or HEAD, SNAPSHOT, ALPHA, PRE_RELEASE, RELEASE_CANDIDATE, |
30 |
alia al) would not be installed. (Until you changes your ACCEPT_UPSTREAM |
31 |
in make.conf or edit /etc/portage/package.upstream) |
32 |
|
33 |
I'd like upstream stability more cleanly separated from ebuild stability. |
34 |
Ciaran did clarify the roles of the various keywords and the global and |
35 |
profile-provided package.masks; from my experience I couldn't see the |
36 |
degree of separation that is intended -- dismissing the few abuses that |
37 |
are still in the portage tree. I still think my system would be better, |
38 |
but I'm biased. :) |
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
"If there's one thing we've established over the years, |
42 |
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest |
43 |
clue what's best for them in terms of package stability." |
44 |
-- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh |
45 |
-- |
46 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |