Neil Bothwick <neil <at> digimed.co.uk> writes:
> You may fond that it was masked for a good reason, or you may find that > it works fine for you. Check /usr/portage/profile/package.mask for the > reason for masking. In this case it simply says masked for testing, which > I tend to take as an invitation to test :) Hello Neil, OK, I see this along with the date from October of 06: # Luis Medinas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (28 Oct 2006) # Mask dhcdbd and NetworkManager for testing # Steev Klimaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (04 Nov 2006) # Rename NetworkManager to networkmanager for consistency. net-misc/dhcdbd net-misc/networkmanager But the aforemenntioned bugzilla issues are since this date. Reading them makes consider this package to be a time sink...... If it's ready for testing shouldn't it be (~) masked and not (M) masked? If not, what the meaning of masking with (~) versus (M) ? Point me to the docs that I need to brush up on, as I rarely consider a package if it's (M) masked. The few I have tried, not one ever compiled. I'll look in this file (/usr/portage/profile/package.mask) in the future. That said, as soon as I get a second system with 802.11 working, I'll unmask it and give it a shot. thanks, James -- [email protected] mailing list
