On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:59:40 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [08-11-23 13:56]: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Yes, I know...the only thing I dont know is the name of the > > > flag, Sorry, if my satiric comment of my previous posting miss > > > its target ;) > ^ > My,Typo corrected > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a sample of my file. This should help. > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # cat /etc/portage/package.unmask > > #>=app-pda/libopensync-0.36 > > >=dev-util/cmake-2.4.7 > > =kde-base/kitchensync-3.5.9-r1 > > =kde-base/ksysguard-3.5.9-r1 > > =net-print/foomatic-filters-3.0.20070501 > > =app-pda/libopensync-0.36 > > =app-cdr/cdrtools-2.01.01_alpha42 > > =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.25-r6 > > #=x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-177.13 > > =app-portage/udept-0.5.99.0.2.95-r1 > > =x11-apps/xinit-1.0.5-r2 > > <=app-portage/eix-0.13.5 > > =app-crypt/qca-1.0-r3 > > =app-cdr/cdrtools-2.01.01_alpha52 > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # > > > > Note the ones with the number symbol are commented out and > > ignored by portage. Also, if you want to unmask without using > > the equal, or greater/less than signs, leave off the version > > number on the end. I'm not sure what you mean by a "flag"? > > > > That help? > > > > Dale > > > > :-) :-) > > > > I know the unmask procedure as something like (for example) > kde-base/kitchensync ~x86 > in case of an ordinary intelish PC... > So, if unmasking without the ~x86 I will > try that. > mcc >
There are two different types of masking that I think are being confused here. Keyword masking based on the various CPU architectures (x86, amd64, ppc etc. & the ~variants), and Package masking that masks a package across all archs, usually for stability or security reasons. Usually, the "All ebuilds that satisfy <blah> have been masked" will say either "(masked by: missing keyword)" or "(masked by: package.mask)". To unmask packages masked by missing keywords, you add a line to /etc/portage/package.keywords w/ the package atom & a list of keywords to accept for that package atom. To unmask packages masked by package.mask, you only need to add the package atom to /etc/portage/package.unmask. But in this specific case it's actually not a masking issue, it's a missing package issue as discussed in the other sub-thread. Arguably Portage should either not give the "All ebuilds have been masked" error, or should say something like "(masked by: no matching ebuilds)". Hope you get it working, Conway S. Smith -- The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned. (Bruce Ediger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], in comp.os.linux.misc, on X interfaces.)
