[gentoo-dev] Missing feature for

[gentoo-dev] Missing feature for

[Christian Aust]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing feature for

[Daniel Armyr]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing feature for

[Christian Aust]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing feature for

[Marius Mauch]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing feature for

[Kumba]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask

[Stanislav Brabec]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask

[Kurt V. Hindenburg]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask

[Alastair Tse]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] not missing feature for package.unmask

[Kurt V. Hindenburg]

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