On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) > > autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off.
So, is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in FEATURES: $ emerge --info | grep FEATURES FEATURES="assume-digests binpkg-logs buildsyspkg collision-protect distlocks ebuild-locks fixlafiles fixpackages metadata-transfer news parallel-fetch preserve-libs protect-owned sandbox sfperms strict unknown-features-warn unmerge-logs unmerge-orphans userfetch userpriv usersandbox usersync" > > > I'm a sysadmin, I have an inherent distrust of all things > > software and automagic-config-changers are scary things indeed > > :-) > > autounmask doesn't actually do anything, it only tells you what > should be added to /etc/portage/package.use. You need to use > autounmask-write for that, which doesn't play nicely if package.use > is a directory[1]. However, it does respect the --ask flag, making > it safe for all but the most paranoid BOFHs (no names Alan) to use. > > [1] It writes to a file of its choosing in that directory, with no > regard to its relevance. I'd prefer it to write to something like > packagename.autounmasked or even just packagename as it adds a > comment to the file to explain the content. Hmmmmmmmmmmm, still sounds like something that should be banned. For me at least. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
