Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:22:05 -0500, Dale wrote: Wouldn't this be like putting package.* back to a file instead of a directory tho? That would seem like one step forward and two steps back. Maybe I am missing something again. I sort of got some issues going on around here. :/ No, the discussion is about the name of the file in package.unmask. if that is a file there is no issue. The problem is that portage just picks a file from that directory, it should either have its own file in there or add the entries to a file named after the package. I agree but it doesn't do that. Of course, as I described, having many files makes it difficult to find what file contains what too. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 02:52:05 -0500, Dale wrote: No, the discussion is about the name of the file in package.unmask. if that is a file there is no issue. The problem is that portage just picks a file from that directory, it should either have its own file in there or add the entries to a file named after the package. I agree but it doesn't do that. Well, we wouldn't be complaining about it not doing something if it did it :) Of course, as I described, having many files makes it difficult to find what file contains what too. Not if the files are sensibly organised. The current implementation messes up that organisation. -- Neil Bothwick The horizon of many people is a circle with a radius of zero. They call this their point of view. -- Albert Einstein signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file
On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:22:05 -0500, Dale wrote: Wouldn't this be like putting package.* back to a file instead of a directory tho? That would seem like one step forward and two steps back. Maybe I am missing something again. I sort of got some issues going on around here. :/ No, the discussion is about the name of the file in package.unmask. if that is a file there is no issue. The problem is that portage just picks a file from that directory, it should either have its own file in there or add the entries to a file named after the package. -- Neil Bothwick An unemployed Court Jester is nobody's fool. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file
On 05.07.2011 17:58, Dale wrote: I was using autounmask to do this and it does just like you want. However, the last time I used autounmask, it was different. You may want to try that tho to see if it helps in some way. The feature with emerge picks the first file I think in the directory. It is annoying as heck for sure. Since it is a work in progress, maybe they will change this weird behavior soon. Then again, that is yet another option to have to remember too. Jeez. Dale :-) :-) Thanks for the hint. Last time I tried it, it had problems (not removing files when the unmasking didn't succeed or something like that, I don't remember exactly). However, maybe things have changed for the better.
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file
Gian Calgeer wrote: Hi I was really looking forward to the new autounmask feature in portage, as it replaces my ugly home-grown bash script. However, it just picks a seemingly random file in /etc/portage/package.keywords to put things into. Is there a way to specify which file it writes things into? Ideally, I would like to have file names based on the package I'm emerging, so if e.g. I do emerge --autounmask-write=y dev-ruby/rest-client, it should put the keywords into /etc/portage/package.keywords/dev-ruby-rest-client or similar. Alternatively, it would be great if I could at least get portage to output the keywords to stdout without mixing it up with other output, so I could redirect it to a file I want. Is there any way to do this? Gian I was using autounmask to do this and it does just like you want. However, the last time I used autounmask, it was different. You may want to try that tho to see if it helps in some way. The feature with emerge picks the first file I think in the directory. It is annoying as heck for sure. Since it is a work in progress, maybe they will change this weird behavior soon. Then again, that is yet another option to have to remember too. Jeez. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file
On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 10:58:57 -0500, Dale wrote: Then again, that is yet another option to have to remember too. Jeez. That's why we have EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS :) -- Neil Bothwick Top Oxymorons Number 46: Found missing signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 10:58:57 -0500, Dale wrote: Then again, that is yet another option to have to remember too. Jeez. That's why we have EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS :) Yea but I don't always want it to unmask packages either. If I was going to let that be the default, I may as well run ~amd64. I think it is a work in progress. Just need to give it time to grow a little. ;-) Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file
On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:43:36 -0500, Dale wrote: Then again, that is yet another option to have to remember too. Jeez. That's why we have EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS :) Yea but I don't always want it to unmask packages either. If I was going to let that be the default, I thought we were talking about a switch to set the filename to use. That could be set to a default without turning on autounmask-write. I may as well run ~amd64. That does seem a simpler approach, but this is about unmasking, not just keywording. autounmask is useful to those running ~arch too. -- Neil Bothwick ASSISTANT MANAGER: Feminine form of the word manager (q.v.).
Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:43:36 -0500, Dale wrote: Then again, that is yet another option to have to remember too. Jeez. That's why we have EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS :) Yea but I don't always want it to unmask packages either. If I was going to let that be the default, I thought we were talking about a switch to set the filename to use. That could be set to a default without turning on autounmask-write. I may as well run ~amd64. That does seem a simpler approach, but this is about unmasking, not just keywording. autounmask is useful to those running ~arch too. Wouldn't this be like putting package.* back to a file instead of a directory tho? That would seem like one step forward and two steps back. Maybe I am missing something again. I sort of got some issues going on around here. :/ I just sort of like the way autounmask did it. It has its drawbacks to tho. If you unmask something and there is a package in the file that you wouldn't think is related, good luck finding that later on when you have a lot of files in there. Needle in the haystack comes to mind. I guess that is when grep or something comes in to the rescue. To many options sometimes. o_O Dale :-) :-)
