On 12/25/06, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 25 December 2006 14:09, "Mike Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] anti-portage wreckage?': > I understand the portage system enough to mask > the packages I don't want, but then there's the problem of other updates > requiring that package. Well, either (a) the new version is required, so you'll have to upgrade to the other package as well or (b) a developer was sloppy with dependencies, and you need to file a bug to change them. > Anyways, all I'm essentially asking for is a way to separate minor > updates from major updates. With some of the advanced atom operators (particularly '*' and '~'), you should be able to specify exactly what level of masking you want. I believe this is documented in 'man ebuild' but I'm not sure; 'man portage' is a decent place to start your search for the atom syntax you need. You could also make your own profile that does "cap" packges at a certain version and have it's parent be an established profile, although I'm not sure that bit of portage hackery is supported.
I know these things could be done, but I don't really think it's worth it. The problem is that these kinds of solutions don't scale very well.. they don't really scale at all really. If I have to reinstall for whatever reason, then I have to redo all this hackery, as you put it, heh. In any case, this is still a bit of a reactive approach, since I have to be aware that there may be a problem with a particular update before I know to mask it. I really like the idea of the tree version thing though. I'll see if there's anything I can do to support that. PS:
A: Because it reverses the order of the "conversation". Q: Why is top-posting so annoying? A: Top-posting. Q: What's the most annoying thing on newsgroups and mailing lists.
PS: Noted! Sorry :P
