From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-14394-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: (qmail 6826 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2004 23:41:32 +0000
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197)
  by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 23 Jul 2004 23:41:32 +0000
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org)
	by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1Bo9fP-0006iX-E7
	for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:41:31 +0000
Received: (qmail 9346 invoked by uid 89); 23 Jul 2004 23:41:30 +0000
Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Received: (qmail 11188 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2004 23:41:30 +0000
Message-ID: <4101A229.6030301@engr.orst.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:41:29 -0700
From: Michael Marineau <marineam@engr.orst.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (X11/20040702)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
References: <41019F71.9010604@engr.orst.edu>
In-Reply-To: <41019F71.9010604@engr.orst.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.84.1.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian GNU/Linux) at oregonstate.edu
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=-999.0 required=5.0 tests=
X-Spam-Level: 
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage.
X-Archives-Salt: 3abe058b-b7e6-49fd-93f3-e39406e495db
X-Archives-Hash: cb8901c08b70867612e43b940116d726

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

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

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

iD8DBQFBAaIpiP+LossGzjARAhebAKDEQYeGEfsEsgDBr66xLqHpeaeOiACgmGTx
pMKIi6cooDr7Rlr4euV10UE=
=hFrN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list