Re: [gentoo-user] Confusing Portage Outcomes
On Wed, 21 May 2014 14:33:30 -0400 Hunter Jozwiak wrote: > I commented that out for the purposes of having it in the email as a > sort of example. It isn't actually commented I was in the file. So > having the x86 and the ~x86 in the same variable would make a safe > portage solution? Yes; it allows ~x86 versions, while not disallowing x86 versions. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Confusing Portage Outcomes
> On May 21, 2014, at 13:33, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Wed, 21 May 2014 13:02:46 -0400 > Hunter Jozwiak wrote: > >> Hi all. I made the following in /etc/portage/make.conf >> #ACCEPT_LICENS="*" >> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" >> Save and exit. >> To double check, I ran: >> #emerge --info | grep -i accept >> ACCEPT_LICENSES="* -@EULA" >> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86 ~x86" >> The way it looks, the file just appended what I want to the Portage >> default. As far as the keywords variable is concerned, that will cause >> issues. Do I need to negate the defaults with the -? > > ACCEPT_LICENSES is commented out; so, yes, it'll use the default. > > ACCEPT_KEYWORDS I think that ~x86 includes, similar to how maintainers > specify KEYWORDS="x86" and not KEYWORDS="x86 ~x86" in their ebuilds; > I'm not entirely sure, but I think that would be the case. > > You can check with something like ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~ppc ~x86" > which might result in something that lists all the stable ones as well. > > Negating x86 with - could be a possible solution; however, I wonder if > that's what you want as some packages have only stable versions. > > -- > With kind regards, > > Tom Wijsman (TomWij) > Gentoo Developer > > E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org > GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D > GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D I commented that out for the purposes of having it in the email as a sort of example. It isn't actually commented I was in the file. So having the x86 and the ~x86 in the same variable would make a safe portage solution?
Re: [gentoo-user] Confusing Portage Outcomes
On Wed, 21 May 2014 13:02:46 -0400 Hunter Jozwiak wrote: > Hi all. I made the following in /etc/portage/make.conf > #ACCEPT_LICENS="*" > ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" > Save and exit. > To double check, I ran: > #emerge --info | grep -i accept > ACCEPT_LICENSES="* -@EULA" > ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86 ~x86" > The way it looks, the file just appended what I want to the Portage > default. As far as the keywords variable is concerned, that will cause > issues. Do I need to negate the defaults with the -? ACCEPT_LICENSES is commented out; so, yes, it'll use the default. ACCEPT_KEYWORDS I think that ~x86 includes, similar to how maintainers specify KEYWORDS="x86" and not KEYWORDS="x86 ~x86" in their ebuilds; I'm not entirely sure, but I think that would be the case. You can check with something like ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~ppc ~x86" which might result in something that lists all the stable ones as well. Negating x86 with - could be a possible solution; however, I wonder if that's what you want as some packages have only stable versions. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Confusing Portage Outcomes
Hi all. I made the following in /etc/portage/make.conf #ACCEPT_LICENS="*" ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" Save and exit. To double check, I ran: #emerge --info | grep -i accept ACCEPT_LICENSES="* -@EULA" ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86 ~x86" The way it looks, the file just appended what I want to the Portage default. As far as the keywords variable is concerned, that will cause issues. Do I need to negate the defaults with the -?
