Re: [gentoo-user] Xine-ui masked? [Solved]
Mariusz Pękala schreef: > > Portage overlays are our 'private' portage trees, and they are in no > thing 'worse' than 'official' ebuilds. You clearly haven't seen, or even imagined, some of my initial attempts at ebuild writing, which naturally resided in my overlay tree. :-) Holly -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Xine-ui masked? [Solved]
On 2006-02-06 00:47:03 +0100 (Mon, Feb), Holly Bostick wrote: > Daniel Pielmeier schreef: > > Thank you, > > > > in one portage overlay i use there are three ebuilds > > > > > and they are all marked ~x86. > > Ebuilds from overlay are always ~arch, afaik. Overlays are not > considered "stable" for what seem to me to be obvious reasons; namely > that only the Portage tree itself can mark ebuilds as stable, and since > these ebuilds are not part of the "legal" Portage system, who is > supposed to judge? and secondly, that overlay ebuilds, which could come > from anywhere, could never "out of the box" be considered "stable" -- as > in working-- by the official Portage tree (which is really just another > way of saying the first part). I humbly disagree. ;) As in /usr/portage also in portage overlay ebuild is stable if you mark it stable using KEYWORDS. Portage overlays are our 'private' portage trees, and they are in no thing 'worse' than 'official' ebuilds. You know that old saying: 'A Gentooman's overlay is his castle' ;) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by "grep -i virus $MESSAGE" Trust me. pgpKLrrAGjAny.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Xine-ui masked? [Solved]
Daniel Pielmeier schreef: > Thank you, > > in one portage overlay i use there are three ebuilds > > and they are all marked ~x86. Ebuilds from overlay are always ~arch, afaik. Overlays are not considered "stable" for what seem to me to be obvious reasons; namely that only the Portage tree itself can mark ebuilds as stable, and since these ebuilds are not part of the "legal" Portage system, who is supposed to judge? and secondly, that overlay ebuilds, which could come from anywhere, could never "out of the box" be considered "stable" -- as in working-- by the official Portage tree (which is really just another way of saying the first part). Anyway, > I have removed the ~x86 media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3.ebuild in the > overlay manually and at the moment i emerge > media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3. as far as I know, this is the correct solution; the other point of an overlay is that you keep an eye on it, and if an overlay ebuild does in fact make it into the regular Portage tree, you should remove the overlay build from the overlay and let Portage take over (since, if I recall something that Neil said some time ago, overlay ebuilds will always supercede Portage ebuilds if they duplicate each other, version-wise). That's what works for me, anyway. Holly -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Xine-ui masked? [Solved]
Thank you, in one portage overlay i use there are three ebuilds media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3 media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r2 media-video/xine-ui-0.99.3-r1 and they are all marked ~x86. In the nomal portage tree i have only one ebuild media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3 and it is marked x86. I have removed the ~x86 media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3.ebuild in the overlay manually and at the moment i emerge media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
