Re: [gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage.

[Aaron Kulbe <aaron@linuxlooney.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 23 July 2004 06:41 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
> Michael Marineau wrote:
> | I have a couple questions about why portage handles masked packages.
>
> oops, typo.  *how* portage handles masked packages.
>
> | First of all, when a specific masked package is emerged (usually a
> | ~mask) and
> | it is depended on by another package emerge -UD world will fail because
> | of the
> | masked dependency.  This can be avoided by specifically unmasking the
> | package,
> | but that can be a bit tedious if this situation is a common occurrence.
> | Failing seems the right thing to do if the masked package is not already
> | installed, but if the package is already installed it would make sense
> | to me
> | that portage realizes that the dependency is already met and not die.
> |
> | Another thought that I made a comment on in the GLEP 19 thread is that if
> | a package is removed from the portage tree, later when upgrading another
> | the user
> | will be forced to upgrade(or downgrade if upgrades are masked) that
> | package to,
> | even if they wanted to keep the existing version.  To get around this
> | the user
> | must save the old ebuild to their portage overly.  I think it would make
> | more
> | sense to let the existing set of installed packages behave as another
> | portage
> | overly so that it is easy to hold on existing packages.  This would also
> | avoid
> | any accidental downgrades if a package was ~arch masked, but then
> | removed from
> | portage in favor of a newer version.
> |
> | --
> | Michael Marineau
> | marineam@engr.orst.edu
> | Oregon State University

 man portage
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBAciU86Mtr34uz40RAnEfAJ92pg5GHPKJmNonlIm2xa3K2qxMiwCgrzMC
SHijmj2wbA6rVLdnsPLJOk0=
=3w2P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list