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=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_MISSING, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from syroidmanor.com (hssx-sktn-167-14.sasknet.sk.ca [142.165.167.14]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E36ABDA6 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 14:29:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [192.168.1.8] (HELO [192.168.1.8]) by syroidmanor.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP id 1074194 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 13:17:04 -0600 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 13:28:12 -0600 From: Tom Syroid To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask Message-ID: <347460000.1023478092@phaedrus.syroidmanor.com> In-Reply-To: <3D01092E.5020003@sympatico.ca> References: <3D01092E.5020003@sympatico.ca> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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 Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 4174a409-46db-45a9-9982-42c74de2426c X-Archives-Hash: 9591e5f1eec7b040da074aaed5fae07b YES! (thanks, Eric), to chime in on this thread... Most uses of Gentoo are mature, bleeding edge folk who -should- know the danger of blindly "emerging" -u world (if not, they need to relearn the *NIX tradition of RTFM). But I too would like to see a way of "locking down" my "unmasks". For example, I've been compiling everything using BINUTILS-2.12 (?) for weeks now without problems or difficulties. It's a royal pain, however, to have to edit my ../profiles/default-1.0/packages after every emerge. I'll state openly that I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea how difficult the aforementioned would be, but it sure would be *nice* to have some mask control built into Portage. Best, /tom --On Friday, June 07, 2002 15:27:42 -0400 Eric Thibeault Jolin wrote: > > Portage works like a charm, but it is a chore to use package.masked stuff > and update often. I want a /etc/package.mask file that doesn't get > modified by portage and overrides /usr/portage/profile/package.mask. I > also want the ability to write something like "! > >=gnome-base/gnome-2.0.0_beta5" to force unmasking a package. But user > masking will be nice too, like to force not installing jdk 1.4 on > "emerge--update world" or to "remove nautilus from gnome-base", at least > in effect. When I said portage shouldn't tamper with it, a possible > exception might be when a package forced unmasked in /etc is permanently > removed from /usr/portage/profile/package.mask, it might be good to > remove it from /etc/package.mask (respecting config protection, of > course). > > On the other point of view, a /etc/package.protect file might be useful > to manually protect a package or version of package from being removed by > "emerge clean". > > As I said, it already works wonders, but these small changes and it will > be perfect! Okay, maybe not... almost perfect. > > _______________________________________________ > gentoo-dev mailing list > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev