Re: [gentoo-user] Protecting a package in package.keywords?
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:30:43 -0800, Jason Ausmus wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: CTI Corporativo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Am I the only person getting these emails? No, and we're both going to get another one now. You get one each time you post to the list - think of it as a confirmation that your mail has got through :) -- Neil Bothwick ...Advert for restaurant: "Exotic foods for all occasions. Police balls a speciality." signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RE: [gentoo-user] Protecting a package in package.keywords?
> -Original Message- > From: Neil Bothwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:46 PM > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Protecting a package in package.keywords? > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:55:52 -0800, Jason Ausmus wrote: > > > > the latest ivtv branch (irregardless of whether its marked > > > stable). > > > > > > > > Sorry, but "irregardless" != English word > > > > I'm not trying to deputize myself as a grammar police > officer, but I'm > > powerless to resist this one... > > Try harder - irregardless is in the Oxford English > Dictionary. it's listed as an Americanism, a blend of > irrespective and regardless. > > You may not consider it good English (and neither do I) but > it is an English word. > > > -- > Neil Bothwick > > Borg, James Borg. Vodka martini, Gin is irrelevant. > I stand corrected and disembadged. ;) Sorry about that... >From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless : "Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so. " -- Jason -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Protecting a package in package.keywords?
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:13:31 +, Mick wrote: > I guess that's a bit like the infamous "cake-walk" phrase in reference > to the TV announcements made at the time of the recent Iraq invasion? > It left me wondering whether they intended to say "piece of cake" or "a > walk in the park". I guess they were also probably thinking "to have > their cake and eat it", but that's not what they said. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cakewalk But now we're getting even more OT than the meeces :) -- Neil Bothwick Top Oxymorons Number 39: Almost exactly signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Protecting a package in package.keywords?
On Thursday 14 December 2006 00:45, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:55:52 -0800, Jason Ausmus wrote: > > > the latest ivtv branch (irregardless of whether its marked > > > stable). > > > > > > > > Sorry, but "irregardless" != English word > > > > I'm not trying to deputize myself as a grammar police officer, but I'm > > powerless to resist this one... > > Try harder - irregardless is in the Oxford English Dictionary. it's > listed as an Americanism, a blend of irrespective and regardless. > > You may not consider it good English (and neither do I) but it is an > English word. I guess that's a bit like the infamous "cake-walk" phrase in reference to the TV announcements made at the time of the recent Iraq invasion? It left me wondering whether they intended to say "piece of cake" or "a walk in the park". I guess they were also probably thinking "to have their cake and eat it", but that's not what they said. -- Regards, Mick pgpcTEy2ktRZs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Protecting a package in package.keywords?
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:55:52 -0800, Jason Ausmus wrote: > > the latest ivtv branch (irregardless of whether its marked > > stable). > > > > Sorry, but "irregardless" != English word > > I'm not trying to deputize myself as a grammar police officer, but I'm > powerless to resist this one... Try harder - irregardless is in the Oxford English Dictionary. it's listed as an Americanism, a blend of irrespective and regardless. You may not consider it good English (and neither do I) but it is an English word. -- Neil Bothwick Borg, James Borg. Vodka martini, Gin is irrelevant. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RE: [gentoo-user] Protecting a package in package.keywords?
> -Original Message- > From: Steve Dibb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:14 PM > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Protecting a package in package.keywords? > > Travis Osterman wrote: > Technically, you're going > to be best off running > the latest ivtv branch (irregardless of whether its marked stable). Sorry, but "irregardless" != English word I'm not trying to deputize myself as a grammar police officer, but I'm powerless to resist this one... - Jason Do grammar police have K-9 units? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Protecting a package in package.keywords?
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:46:40 -0500, Travis Osterman wrote: > Excellent, I put both "=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.19-r1" and > "=media-tv/ivtv-0.9.0" in my package.keywords and now I can emerge > world without worry. You are probably better off with "~sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.19" which will allow upgrades to -r1, -r2 etc but not to 2.6.20. tat way you will keep up with security and bug fixes without changing the kernel version. -- Neil Bothwick Electricians DO IT until it Hz... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Protecting a package in package.keywords?
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 22:59, Travis Osterman wrote: > I needed to unmask ivtv by placing it in my > /etc/portage/package.keywords as "media-tv/ivtv". Now I'd like to > have my system not ask me to ever upgrade it again until the newer > version is required as a dependency of some other program. Why? > I thought that putting "=media-tv/ivtv-0.9.0" (where 0.9.0 is my > current version) in /etc/portage/package.mask would be the solution, > but when I "emerge ivtv -pv" it wants to upgrade to "0.9.1". You should package.mask the versions you don't want. Not the version you do want. So ">=media-tv/ivtv-0.9.1" seems to be what you're looking for. Or ">media-tv/ivtv-0.9.0"... > I commented out the line in package.keywords thinking maybe if it was > already installed and masked that portage would ignore it. The result > of this was portage wanted to downgrade to the more 'stable' 0.8.x - > which is also not the desired result. Of course you can also just put "=media-tv/ivtv-0.9.0" in package.keywords. That will work until the 0.9 branch gets stabilised. Of course "~media-tv/ivtv-0.9.0" may be preferred since you may want bugfixes like media-tv/ivtv-0.9.0-r1, media-tv/ivtv-0.9.0-r2 etc. if such ever gets realeased in the tree... > Is there a way to not upgrade to 0.9.1 without emerge'ing ivtv with > the '-1' option or using package.provided (as it seems to circumvent > portage's dependency checking)? Thanks. Using package.provided is a *really* bad idea! It will bite you eventually... This is all documented in `man portage` and the handbook... -- Bo Andresen pgp9dk5X7P5NN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Protecting a package in package.keywords?
If you wanted to do something like that, and make all 0.9.x versions "stable" in package.keywords, then you would add this: =media-tv/ivtv-0.9* But if you just want to stick with 0.9.0, then what you had before is correct. =media-tv/ivtv-0.9.0 Excellent, I put both "=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.19-r1" and "=media-tv/ivtv-0.9.0" in my package.keywords and now I can emerge world without worry. If either of these versions get unmasked by the developers, am I back in the same situation of needing to manually mask them to prevent installation? At least I know this will work for now. Thanks. -- Travis -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Protecting a package in package.keywords?
Travis Osterman wrote: I needed to unmask ivtv by placing it in my /etc/portage/package.keywords as "media-tv/ivtv". Now I'd like to have my system not ask me to ever upgrade it again until the newer version is required as a dependency of some other program. I thought that putting "=media-tv/ivtv-0.9.0" (where 0.9.0 is my current version) in /etc/portage/package.mask would be the solution, but when I "emerge ivtv -pv" it wants to upgrade to "0.9.1". I commented out the line in package.keywords thinking maybe if it was already installed and masked that portage would ignore it. The result of this was portage wanted to downgrade to the more 'stable' 0.8.x - which is also not the desired result. Well, ivtv is a little strange in the sense that each branch is specific for a kernel branch. Technically, you're going to be best off running the latest ivtv branch (irregardless of whether its marked stable). So, if you are running the 0.9 branch of ivtv, I'd recommend keeping up to date with the bugfixes and upgrading to 0.9.1. If you wanted to do something like that, and make all 0.9.x versions "stable" in package.keywords, then you would add this: =media-tv/ivtv-0.9* But if you just want to stick with 0.9.0, then what you had before is correct. =media-tv/ivtv-0.9.0 Just make sure there aren't any other entries for ivtv in there. Steve -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
