Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

["mike" <vapier@netzero.com>]

yes but what if you're working on a newer version of a package
that is currently masked ?  if you keep the ebuild in your local
portage dir, but its getting masked ...
in other words, PORTAGE_OVERLAY should not be affected
by the package.mask
-mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Nelson" <jnelson@jamponi.net>
To: "Jonathan Kelly" <j0n@tpg.com.au>
Cc: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 12:26
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask


> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 16:57:34 +1000
> Jonathan Kelly <j0n@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > It would make sense (to me anyway) if the local ebuilds in
> > > $PORTDIR_OVERLAY were *NOT* checked against packages.mask, that way us
> ..
> > I think that is a logical and great idea.
>
> I disgree.  I think it's a hack that doesn't really solve the problem at
> hand, which is "supplementary" package masking, using the package
> mask in /usr/portage as the 'canonical' package mask and then using
> a second package mask to over ride that.
>
> PORTDIR_OVERLAY is there for just one reason, to provide *local*
> ebuilds.  If the behavior of ebuilds is different here, that is an
> inferred behavior and not a logical one.
>
> package masking and ebuilds are separate, keep their interfaces
> separate.
>
> --
> Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.
>
> Jon Nelson <jnelson@jamponi.net>
> C and Python Code Gardener
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
>