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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from mail1.tpgi.com.au (mail.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.57]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B53AC3F2 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 02:02:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from arjuna.kelly.org (syd-ts13-2600-024.tpgi.com.au [203.213.81.24]) by mail1.tpgi.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g7I72A008042 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 17:02:11 +1000 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 16:57:34 +1000 From: Jonathan Kelly To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask Message-Id: <20020818165734.6029f4bc.j0n@tpg.com.au> In-Reply-To: <1029652282.5860.5.camel@waterhouse.internal.lan> References: <3D5D7C8C.7080002@werner-productions.de> <1029539321.12380.3.camel@waterhouse.internal.lan> <20020818140440.698d6380.j0n@tpg.com.au> <1029652282.5860.5.camel@waterhouse.internal.lan> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.1claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; ) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 12ffb370-d7fa-4bef-9fb3-4dde5ab58df4 X-Archives-Hash: 195b224ce489885266e202ecb23176c2 On 18 Aug 2002 16:31:21 +1000 Troy Dack wrote: > 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. I think that is a logical and great idea. Cheers. Jonathan Kelly.