* [gentoo-dev] Missing feature for
@ 2003-06-09 20:56 Christian Aust
2003-06-09 21:28 ` Daniel Armyr
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Christian Aust @ 2003-06-09 20:56 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Gentoo-dev
Hi all,
I'm not sure if gentoo actually lacks this feature, but how can I
permanently accept ebuilds that are marked unstable, _without_ messing
with the original ebuild file and loosing my changes during the next
portage update?
Ie, I've emerged gcc-3.3 and like to give it a try on my Intel P4. But
"emerge -ep system" would downgrade it to 3.2.x first, instead of
leaving it alone. Also, I wouldn't like to accept all unstable packages
in make.conf; I figure it would be more difficult to tell what went
wrong wrong in case of an error if you have all unstable packages (and
not only gcc).
Your feedback is appreciated. Best regards,
- Christian
--
Christian Aust
mailto:christian@wilde-welt.de
icq: 84500990 - Yahoo!: datenimperator - MSN: datenimperator
GPG: 3C89AD72
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing feature for
2003-06-09 20:56 [gentoo-dev] Missing feature for Christian Aust
@ 2003-06-09 21:28 ` Daniel Armyr
2003-06-09 21:52 ` Christian Aust
2003-06-09 22:08 ` Kumba
2003-06-10 8:21 ` [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask Stanislav Brabec
2 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Armyr @ 2003-06-09 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 900 bytes --]
Have you looked into the PORTAGE_OVERLAY setting in /etc/make.conf. It is my experience that an ebuild with the same version in the overlay dir will override the one in /usr/portage. So when I want to use an unstable package, I copy it to the overlay, and edit the KEYWORDS variable in the ebuild. A bit hacky, but it works.
--Daniel Armyr
> Ie, I've emerged gcc-3.3 and like to give it a try on my Intel P4. But
> "emerge -ep system" would downgrade it to 3.2.x first, instead of
> leaving it alone. Also, I wouldn't like to accept all unstable
> packages in make.conf; I figure it would be more difficult to tell
> what went wrong wrong in case of an error if you have all unstable
> packages (and not only gcc).
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
daniel.armyr@home.se f00-dar@f.kth.se
Tegnergatan 40 rum 505 +46 8 8 31 52 17
113 59 Stockholm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing feature for
2003-06-09 21:28 ` Daniel Armyr
@ 2003-06-09 21:52 ` Christian Aust
2003-06-09 22:05 ` Marius Mauch
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Christian Aust @ 2003-06-09 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Gentoo-dev
Am Mo, 2003-06-09 um 23.28 schrieb Daniel Armyr:
> Have you looked into the PORTAGE_OVERLAY setting in /etc/make.conf. It is my experience that an ebuild with the same version in the overlay dir will override the one in /usr/portage. So when I want to use an unstable package, I copy it to the overlay, and edit the KEYWORDS variable in the ebuild. A bit hacky, but it works.
> --Daniel Armyr
In gentoo forums I've found this:
If you are using Portage >= 2.0.48, there is another option for
installing masked packages that does not require editing package.mask.
You can add a category/package entry into the file
/etc/portage/package.unmask, which will survive across an "emerge sync".
[http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=33534]
I've tried it, but it didn't show any effect. Currently this file just
consists of
sys-devel/gcc-3.3
What else should be in there? Will this file be loaded every time I
emerge something, or do I have to regen something? Best regards,
- Christian
--
Christian Aust
mailto:christian@wilde-welt.de
icq: 84500990 - Yahoo!: datenimperator - MSN: datenimperator
GPG: 3C89AD72
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing feature for
2003-06-09 21:52 ` Christian Aust
@ 2003-06-09 22:05 ` Marius Mauch
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Marius Mauch @ 2003-06-09 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On 09 Jun 2003 23:52:01 +0200 Christian Aust wrote:
> In gentoo forums I've found this:
>
> If you are using Portage >= 2.0.48, there is another option for
> installing masked packages that does not require editing package.mask.
> You can add a category/package entry into the file
> /etc/portage/package.unmask, which will survive across an "emerge
> sync".
>
> [http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=33534]
>
> I've tried it, but it didn't show any effect. Currently this file just
> consists of
>
> sys-devel/gcc-3.3
I've read somewhere that this file only effects packages masked by
package.mask in /usr/portage/profiles and not ebuild masked via
KEYWORDS.
Marius
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing feature for
2003-06-09 20:56 [gentoo-dev] Missing feature for Christian Aust
2003-06-09 21:28 ` Daniel Armyr
@ 2003-06-09 22:08 ` Kumba
2003-06-10 8:21 ` [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask Stanislav Brabec
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Kumba @ 2003-06-09 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Christian Aust; +Cc: gentoo-dev
Well, you can enable ACCEPT_KEYWORDS in /etc/make.conf and set it to
~arch, where "arch" is your architecture (i.e. ~x86). This opens up a
number of interesting packages. Then there is
/usr/portage/profiles/package.mask. Any item in this file is literally
banned from being installed, usually as a safety precaution. gcc-3.3 is
a fairly new compiler release, and I believe some fo the AMD Hammer
patches are still reported to break things, so it's masked in
package.mask to protect even the people running ~arch. I currently use
gcc-3.3 and glibc-2.3.2-r2 + nptl, and so far haven't had any issues.
When these packages will be removed from package.mask is anyone's guess,
but for now, every `emerge rsync', you'll have to manually edit that
file. It's what I have to do.
--Kumba
Christian Aust wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm not sure if gentoo actually lacks this feature, but how can I
> permanently accept ebuilds that are marked unstable, _without_ messing
> with the original ebuild file and loosing my changes during the next
> portage update?
>
> Ie, I've emerged gcc-3.3 and like to give it a try on my Intel P4. But
> "emerge -ep system" would downgrade it to 3.2.x first, instead of
> leaving it alone. Also, I wouldn't like to accept all unstable packages
> in make.conf; I figure it would be more difficult to tell what went
> wrong wrong in case of an error if you have all unstable packages (and
> not only gcc).
>
> Your feedback is appreciated. Best regards,
>
> - Christian
>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask
2003-06-09 20:56 [gentoo-dev] Missing feature for Christian Aust
2003-06-09 21:28 ` Daniel Armyr
2003-06-09 22:08 ` Kumba
@ 2003-06-10 8:21 ` Stanislav Brabec
2003-06-11 0:02 ` Kurt V. Hindenburg
2 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Stanislav Brabec @ 2003-06-10 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Christian Aust; +Cc: Gentoo-dev
V Po, 09. 06. 2003 v 22:56, Christian Aust napsal:
> I'm not sure if gentoo actually lacks this feature, but how can I
> permanently accept ebuilds that are marked unstable,
It does not lack, probably only does not document it:
mkdir -p /etc/portage
echo "sys-devel/gcc" >>/etc/portage/package.unmask
--
Stanislav Brabec
http://www.penguin.cz/~utx
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask
2003-06-10 8:21 ` [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask Stanislav Brabec
@ 2003-06-11 0:02 ` Kurt V. Hindenburg
2003-06-11 13:08 ` Alastair Tse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Kurt V. Hindenburg @ 2003-06-11 0:02 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Stanislav Brabec, Christian Aust; +Cc: Gentoo-dev
On Tuesday 10 June 2003 3:21 am, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
| V Po, 09. 06. 2003 v 22:56, Christian Aust napsal:
| > I'm not sure if gentoo actually lacks this feature, but how can I
| > permanently accept ebuilds that are marked unstable,
|
| It does not lack, probably only does not document it:
|
| mkdir -p /etc/portage
| echo "sys-devel/gcc" >>/etc/portage/package.unmask
Doesn't work here... or did you mean something else?
% cat /etc/portage/package.unmask
app-crypt/cryptplug
% emerge -Up $(qpkg -I -nc)
>>> --upgradeonly implies --update... adding --update to options.
These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
Calculating dependencies /
!!! all ebuilds that could satisfy "app-crypt/cryptplug" have been
masked.
!!! Error calculating dependencies. Please correct.
--
Kurt
---
There is no good and evil; there is only power.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask
2003-06-11 0:02 ` Kurt V. Hindenburg
@ 2003-06-11 13:08 ` Alastair Tse
2003-06-11 14:21 ` Kurt V. Hindenburg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Alastair Tse @ 2003-06-11 13:08 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 750 bytes --]
On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 01:02, Kurt V. Hindenburg wrote:
> Calculating dependencies /
> !!! all ebuilds that could satisfy "app-crypt/cryptplug" have been
> masked.
Maybe because you're on a x86 profile and not ~x86?
% fgrep KEYWORDS cryptplug-0.3.15.ebuild
KEYWORDS="~x86 ~ppc"
AFAIK, that package.unmask only affects things in pacakge.mask, you are
still restricted by ACCEPT_KEYWORDS.
Cheers,
--
Alastair 'liquidx' Tse
>> Gentoo Developer
>> http://www.liquidx.net/ | http://cvs.gentoo.org/~liquidx/
>> GPG Key : http://cvs.gentoo.org/~liquidx/liquidx_gentoo_org.asc
>> FingerPrint : 579A 9B0E 43E8 0E40 EE93 BB1C 38CE 1C7B 3907 14F6
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask
2003-06-11 13:08 ` Alastair Tse
@ 2003-06-11 14:21 ` Kurt V. Hindenburg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Kurt V. Hindenburg @ 2003-06-11 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Alastair Tse, Gentoo-dev
On Wednesday 11 June 2003 8:08 am, Alastair Tse wrote:
| On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 01:02, Kurt V. Hindenburg wrote:
| > Calculating dependencies /
| > !!! all ebuilds that could satisfy "app-crypt/cryptplug" have
| > been masked.
|
| Maybe because you're on a x86 profile and not ~x86?
|
| % fgrep KEYWORDS cryptplug-0.3.15.ebuild
| KEYWORDS="~x86 ~ppc"
|
| AFAIK, that package.unmask only affects things in pacakge.mask, you
| are still restricted by ACCEPT_KEYWORDS.
|
Hmmm, I'm not sure I follow...why does a search on cryptplug says it
is masked?
* app-crypt/cryptplug [ Masked ]
Latest version available: 0.3.15
Latest version installed: 0.3.15
Size of downloaded files: 213 kB
Homepage: http://www.gnupg.org/
Description: GPG and S/MIME encryption plugins. Use by KMail
v1.5 (KDE 3.1) and Mutt
So package.unmask only reverses stuff in package.mask?
--
Kurt
---
There is no good and evil; there is only power.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-06-11 14:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-06-09 20:56 [gentoo-dev] Missing feature for Christian Aust
2003-06-09 21:28 ` Daniel Armyr
2003-06-09 21:52 ` Christian Aust
2003-06-09 22:05 ` Marius Mauch
2003-06-09 22:08 ` Kumba
2003-06-10 8:21 ` [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask Stanislav Brabec
2003-06-11 0:02 ` Kurt V. Hindenburg
2003-06-11 13:08 ` Alastair Tse
2003-06-11 14:21 ` Kurt V. Hindenburg
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox