Jason --
Thanks for clearing up my confusion regarding the
/etc/portage/package.(mask,unmask) function. I use it to
mask out apache2, but did not understand the fact that it
was limited to the contents of /usr/portage/package...
Sorry if I lead anyone astray. ;-(
-rdg
--- Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 13 November 2003 00:17, Eamon Caddigan wrote:
> > Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Nice to hear that you got your problem fixed the
> correct way. For
> > > future reference, the file
> /etc/portage/package.{mask,unmask} are only
> > > for adding/ removing from/to
> /usr/portage/package.mask. If a package
> > > has KEYWORDS="~x86" and you have
> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86", changing the
> > > above files wont make a bit of difference.
> >
> > Ahh, that makes sense. Now I wonder if the lack of
> documentation on this
> > feature is intentional. I saw some talk on the forums
> about this feature
> > being "for developers only".
>
> Well, I don't know about that. What I can say though is
> that no user should
> ever unmask something that is hard-masked unless they are
> fully prepared to
> fix it him or herself and that NO bug reports should be
> submitted. It is
> hard-masked because it is known to be buggy.
>
> In fact, many developers don't like the average user
> running ~arch at all.
> Many users run ~arch just to have the latest and
> "greatest" but aren't
> prepared to handle any problems that may occur and end up
> just slowing down
> the development process which would get packages out of
> ~arch and into arch
> quicker. But how to teach a user to differentiate him or
> herself...
>
> Jason
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
