From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN, DMARC_MISSING,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from mta03bw.bigpond.com (mta03bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.86]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89241ABD6A for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 01:31:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from rennie.internal.lan ([144.135.24.84]) by mta03bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 mta03bw May 23 2002 23:53:28) with SMTP id H110SM00.8SC for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 16:31:34 +1000 Received: from CPE-203-51-186-217.vic.bigpond.net.au ([203.51.186.217]) by bwmam06.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0n 47/34136899); 18 Aug 2002 16:31:34 Received: from windowsbox.internal.lan (waterhouse.internal.lan [192.168.1.100]) by rennie.internal.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD93B484 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 16:31:32 +1000 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask From: Troy Dack To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20020818140440.698d6380.j0n@tpg.com.au> References: <3D5D7C8C.7080002@werner-productions.de> <1029539321.12380.3.camel@waterhouse.internal.lan> <20020818140440.698d6380.j0n@tpg.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 18 Aug 2002 16:31:21 +1000 Message-Id: <1029652282.5860.5.camel@waterhouse.internal.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: de52cb79-40e1-4bb7-834c-7067fc9d6168 X-Archives-Hash: a465885bf908bbd1b105d420f3ebf147 On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 14:04, Jonathan Kelly wrote: > I beg to differ ... I did this with media-gfx/povray and after every > "emerge sync" I get .... > # emerge -pu povray My apologies, I thought that the local ebuilds were NOT checked against packages.mask. I've just tried the same thing as you, with the same results. It would make sense (to me anyway) if the local ebuilds in $PORTDIR_OVERLAY were *NOT* checked against packages.mask, that way us end users could assist the developers by simply dropping masked ebuilds into our local tree and then testing them. Sure it means that there is duplication and some extra hard drive space taken up, but ebuilds aren't that big. Also for those wishing to test ebuilds it would be a conscious decision to place a masked ebuild in your local tree. Maybe I should submit a bug about this. Any devs care to comment? -- Troy Dack http://linuxserver.tkdack.com http://gentoo.tkdack.com