[gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[Sebastian Werner]

Hi!

I want to use the beta version of gimp. So I unmask gimp in 
package.mask. But each rsync this file will be overwritten and I have to 
modify it again. We have a portage overlay support now... what's about 
to add a /usr/portage.local/profiles/package.ok which overrides 
package.mask in /usr/portage? Is it possible to implement something like 
this. I have some more programs which are declared as beta but I want to 
use :)

Regards

Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[mike]

at the moment there is no feature in place ... at least the last
post i saw on bugs.gentoo.org was that PORTAGE_OVERLAY
supported only ebuilds
-mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sebastian Werner" <sebastian@werner-productions.de>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 18:28
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask


> Hi!
> 
> I want to use the beta version of gimp. So I unmask gimp in 
> package.mask. But each rsync this file will be overwritten and I have to 
> modify it again. We have a portage overlay support now... what's about 
> to add a /usr/portage.local/profiles/package.ok which overrides 
> package.mask in /usr/portage? Is it possible to implement something like 
> this. I have some more programs which are declared as beta but I want to 
> use :)
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[Troy Dack]

On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 08:28, Sebastian Werner wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I want to use the beta version of gimp. So I unmask gimp in 
> package.mask. But each rsync this file will be overwritten and I have to 
> modify it again. We have a portage overlay support now... what's about 
> to add a /usr/portage.local/profiles/package.ok which overrides 
> package.mask in /usr/portage? Is it possible to implement something like 
> this. I have some more programs which are declared as beta but I want to 
> use :)
> 

It doesn't exist as yet, but it is in development.  There is at least
one bug on bugs.gentoo.org where the devs are discussing this.

At the moment your best bet is to copy the gimp directory to your
PORTAGE_OVERLAY directory.  Local ebuild are not checked against the
package.mask file.

-- 
	Troy Dack
	http://linuxserver.tkdack.com		http://gentoo.tkdack.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[Sebastian Werner]

Troy Dack schrieb:

>On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 08:28, Sebastian Werner wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi!
>>
>>I want to use the beta version of gimp. So I unmask gimp in 
>>package.mask. But each rsync this file will be overwritten and I have to 
>>modify it again. We have a portage overlay support now... what's about 
>>to add a /usr/portage.local/profiles/package.ok which overrides 
>>package.mask in /usr/portage? Is it possible to implement something like 
>>this. I have some more programs which are declared as beta but I want to 
>>use :)
>>
>>    
>>
>
>It doesn't exist as yet, but it is in development.  There is at least
>one bug on bugs.gentoo.org where the devs are discussing this.
>
>At the moment your best bet is to copy the gimp directory to your
>PORTAGE_OVERLAY directory.  Local ebuild are not checked against the
>package.mask file.
>

cool thank you for this info... :)

Sebastian

>
>  
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[Jonathan Kelly]

On 17 Aug 2002 09:08:41 +1000
Troy Dack <troy@tkdack.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 08:28, Sebastian Werner wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > I want to use the beta version of gimp. So I unmask gimp in 
> > package.mask. But each rsync this file will be overwritten and I have
> > to modify it again. We have a portage overlay support now... what's
> > about to add a /usr/portage.local/profiles/package.ok which overrides 
> > package.mask in /usr/portage? Is it possible to implement something
> > like this. I have some more programs which are declared as beta but I
> > want to use :)
> > 
> 
> It doesn't exist as yet, but it is in development.  There is at least
> one bug on bugs.gentoo.org where the devs are discussing this.
> 
> At the moment your best bet is to copy the gimp directory to your
> PORTAGE_OVERLAY directory.  Local ebuild are not checked against the
> package.mask file.

I beg to differ ... I did this with media-gfx/povray and after every
"emerge sync" I get ....
# emerge -pu povray

These are the packages that I would merge, in order.

Calculating dependencies ...done!
[ebuild    U ] media-gfx/povray-3.1g-r5 to /

---------------------
Jonathan Kelly.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[Troy Dack]

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.

Maybe I should submit a bug about this.  Any devs care to comment?

-- 
	Troy Dack
	http://linuxserver.tkdack.com		http://gentoo.tkdack.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[Thomas Beaudry]

> > 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.
>
>Maybe I should submit a bug about this.  Any devs care to comment?

I'm not a dev but I agree, packages.mask should not affect the local
directory.


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[Jonathan Kelly]

On 18 Aug 2002 16:31:21 +1000
Troy Dack <troy@tkdack.com> 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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[Fredrik Jagenheim]

On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 04:31:21PM +1000, Troy Dack wrote:
> 
> 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.  

Yes, but make sure there is a way to mask packages in the OVERLAY
directory. There are a couple of situtation where you still want to
keep your local ebulld and not build it. If you screwed it up for
example and don't want to bother with moving it out of the OVERLAY dir
to a third dir for backups.

Making a packages.mask in the OVERLAY dir would probably be the best
way to do it.

No, I haven't used this OVERLAY feature myself, so there may perhaps
already be such a thing.

Brgds,
//Humming

Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[Rigo]

Op zo 18-08-2002, om 08:57 schreef Jonathan Kelly:
> On 18 Aug 2002 16:31:21 +1000
> Troy Dack <troy@tkdack.com> 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.

Wouldn't it also be nice if settings in
$PORTDIR_OVERLAY/profiles/package.mask overrule settings in 
$PORTDIR/profiles/package.mask ? This way directories could stay in
$PORTDIR and you don't have to keep worrying about changin' package.mask
time & time again.

Ex: 

lappy # diff /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask
/root/package.mask.2|grep povray

< #=media-gfx/povray-3.50a
> =media-gfx/povray-3.50a


Just a thought,

Rigo

> 
> Cheers.
> Jonathan Kelly.
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[Rigo]

Hmmm, Just saw this was suggestion no. 2 in Bugzilla....Seems I have to
spend EVEN MORE time overthere ;-D !

Never Mind ! 


Rigo


Op zo 18-08-2002, om 11:40 schreef Rigo:
> Op zo 18-08-2002, om 08:57 schreef Jonathan Kelly:
> > On 18 Aug 2002 16:31:21 +1000
> > Troy Dack <troy@tkdack.com> 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.
> 
> Wouldn't it also be nice if settings in
> $PORTDIR_OVERLAY/profiles/package.mask overrule settings in 
> $PORTDIR/profiles/package.mask ? This way directories could stay in
> $PORTDIR and you don't have to keep worrying about changin' package.mask
> time & time again.
> 
> Ex: 
> 
> lappy # diff /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask
> /root/package.mask.2|grep povray
> 
> < #=media-gfx/povray-3.50a
> > =media-gfx/povray-3.50a
> 
> 
> Just a thought,
> 
> Rigo
> 
> > 
> > Cheers.
> > Jonathan Kelly.
> > _______________________________________________
> > gentoo-dev mailing list
> > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[Troy Dack]

For those interested: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6677

If I missed anything, or you have anything extra to add, please do.
 
-- 
	Troy Dack
	http://linuxserver.tkdack.com		http://gentoo.tkdack.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[Jon Nelson]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 16:57:34 +1000
Jonathan Kelly <j0n@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> > It would make sense (to me anyway) if the local ebuilds in
> > $PORTDIR_OVERLAY were *NOT* checked against packages.mask, that way us
..
> I think that is a logical and great idea.

I disgree.  I think it's a hack that doesn't really solve the problem at
hand, which is "supplementary" package masking, using the package
mask in /usr/portage as the 'canonical' package mask and then using
a second package mask to over ride that.

PORTDIR_OVERLAY is there for just one reason, to provide *local*
ebuilds.  If the behavior of ebuilds is different here, that is an 
inferred behavior and not a logical one.

package masking and ebuilds are separate, keep their interfaces
separate.

-- 
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Jon Nelson <jnelson@jamponi.net>
C and Python Code Gardener

Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask

[mike]

yes but what if you're working on a newer version of a package
that is currently masked ?  if you keep the ebuild in your local
portage dir, but its getting masked ...
in other words, PORTAGE_OVERLAY should not be affected
by the package.mask
-mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Nelson" <jnelson@jamponi.net>
To: "Jonathan Kelly" <j0n@tpg.com.au>
Cc: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 12:26
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask


> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 16:57:34 +1000
> Jonathan Kelly <j0n@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > It would make sense (to me anyway) if the local ebuilds in
> > > $PORTDIR_OVERLAY were *NOT* checked against packages.mask, that way us
> ..
> > I think that is a logical and great idea.
>
> I disgree.  I think it's a hack that doesn't really solve the problem at
> hand, which is "supplementary" package masking, using the package
> mask in /usr/portage as the 'canonical' package mask and then using
> a second package mask to over ride that.
>
> PORTDIR_OVERLAY is there for just one reason, to provide *local*
> ebuilds.  If the behavior of ebuilds is different here, that is an
> inferred behavior and not a logical one.
>
> package masking and ebuilds are separate, keep their interfaces
> separate.
>
> --
> Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.
>
> Jon Nelson <jnelson@jamponi.net>
> C and Python Code Gardener
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
>