[gentoo-dev] Why no local mask override?

[gentoo-dev] Why no local mask override?

[Luke Maurer]

I've whined about this before, but failed to get a cohesive explanation.
Why is there no easy way to override the package mask? Why not even
anything as simple as a --nomask option? Sure, there are workarounds,
but most posts about them admit they are "nasty," "dirty," or "kludges."
Why is there no /etc/package.unmask (along with an /etc/package.mask,
for that matter)? If it's to protect people from their mistakes ...
that's rather futile, as it only forces them to turn to black magic (or
tedious editing and re-editing) to use the emerges *they* *want.* Isn't
this supposed to be the most customizable Linux distro around?

</rant>

Jyrinx
jyrinx_list@mindspring.com

P.S. The problem with difficult unmasking is exacerbated by the fact
that some of the masking is overzealous; for instance, if one is running
GNOME 2 but using some GNOME 1.4 apps (i.e. one is running GNOME 2), and
one wants them to have a nice GTK1 theme, one has to unmask it, causing
one great consternation and inspiring one to extensive rants on
gentoo-dev. Unmasking should be something for exceptional, not common,
cases.

P.P.S. Also, Portage currently violates the standard filesystem
hierarchy; there are /etc files that one mustn't change (i.e. express
global state) and /usr/portage files that one is expected to fiddle with
(i.e. express local state).

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why no local mask override?

[mike]

solutions are being worked on to address.  so the answer is
'its not done' ;)
-mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Luke Maurer" <maurerl@carleton.edu>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 11:17
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Why no local mask override?


> I've whined about this before, but failed to get a cohesive explanation.
> Why is there no easy way to override the package mask? Why not even
> anything as simple as a --nomask option? Sure, there are workarounds,
> but most posts about them admit they are "nasty," "dirty," or "kludges."
> Why is there no /etc/package.unmask (along with an /etc/package.mask,
> for that matter)? If it's to protect people from their mistakes ...
> that's rather futile, as it only forces them to turn to black magic (or
> tedious editing and re-editing) to use the emerges *they* *want.* Isn't
> this supposed to be the most customizable Linux distro around?
> 
> </rant>
> 
> Jyrinx
> jyrinx_list@mindspring.com
> 
> P.S. The problem with difficult unmasking is exacerbated by the fact
> that some of the masking is overzealous; for instance, if one is running
> GNOME 2 but using some GNOME 1.4 apps (i.e. one is running GNOME 2), and
> one wants them to have a nice GTK1 theme, one has to unmask it, causing
> one great consternation and inspiring one to extensive rants on
> gentoo-dev. Unmasking should be something for exceptional, not common,
> cases.
> 
> P.P.S. Also, Portage currently violates the standard filesystem
> hierarchy; there are /etc files that one mustn't change (i.e. express
> global state) and /usr/portage files that one is expected to fiddle with
> (i.e. express local state).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why no local mask override? (PS)

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 641 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:17:06 -0500
Luke Maurer <maurerl@carleton.edu> wrote:


since you got a reply to the top part I'll only do a PS reply
> for instance, if one is running GNOME 2 but using some GNOME 1.4 apps
> (i.e. one is running GNOME 2), and one wants them to have a nice GTK1
> theme, one has to unmask it.

No, you just have to emerge the right version. the hierarchy in
x11-themes/ has changed, look at how to emerge a specific version
instead of unmasking.


//Spider



--
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why no local mask override? (PS)

[Luke Maurer]

Sez Mike:

> solutions are being worked on to address.  so the answer is
> 'its not done' ;)
> -mike

Ah. Okay, that's legit. :-)

Sez Spider:

> > for instance, if one is running GNOME 2 but using some GNOME 1.4 apps
> > (i.e. one is running GNOME 2), and one wants them to have a nice GTK1
> > theme, one has to unmask it.
> 
> No, you just have to emerge the right version. the hierarchy in
> x11-themes/ has changed, look at how to emerge a specific version
> instead of unmasking.

Actually, it looks like things have changed since I last ran into this
problem: It used to be that emerge would refuse a masked ebuild even
when specified by filename. It looks like this is no longer the case -
meaning that, after all, there is an equivalent, though somewhat less
elegant, to a --nomask option. But I couldn't find mention of this in
the changelog; shouldn't this be more well-known? It would make for far
easier answers to all those "how to unmask such-and-such" posts.

Luke Maurer
maurerl@carleton.edu

P.S. I really don't mean to be a curmudgeon; this is merely a pet peeve.
Gentoo rocks.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why no local mask override? (PS)

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 928 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:51:09 -0500
Luke Maurer <maurerl@carleton.edu> wrote:

<SNIP> 
>>But I couldn't find mention of this in
> the changelog; shouldn't this be more well-known? It would make for
> far easier answers to all those "how to unmask such-and-such" posts.
> 

well.. it is in the changelog...

from my /usr/share/doc/portage-2.0.36/ChangeLog.gz

  28 Aug 2002; Daniel Robbins <drobbins@gentoo.org> emerge: emerging
.tbz2
  packages and .ebuilds by name now works; this was broken in 2.0.30.

perhaps you were looking at the -packages- ChangeLog and not at the
Programs ChangeLog?

> 
> P.S. I really don't mean to be a curmudgeon; this is merely a pet
> peeve. Gentoo rocks.


No problem, fixing peevees is what makes a distro smooth and polished 

//Spider
--
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why no local mask override? (PS)

[Luke Maurer]

>   28 Aug 2002; Daniel Robbins <drobbins@gentoo.org> emerge: emerging
> .tbz2
>   packages and .ebuilds by name now works; this was broken in 2.0.30.

Ah, okay. I guess I just didn't know what was meant by "broken" :-)

Luke Maurer
maurerl@carleton.edu