From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tmbeaudry@msn.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
	version=4.0.0
Received: from hotmail.com (f4.pav0.hotmail.com [64.4.33.4])
	by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7144ABB5C
	for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 01:54:50 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Sat, 17 Aug 2002 23:54:50 -0700
Received: from 209.164.228.214 by pv0fd.pav0.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Sun, 18 Aug 2002 06:54:49 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [209.164.228.214]
From: "Thomas Beaudry" <tmbeaudry@msn.com>
To: troy@tkdack.com, gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Overriding package mask
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 06:54:49 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F4z39HfGwYlEN1YMig700009e2b@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Aug 2002 06:54:50.0284 (UTC) FILETIME=[25C12EC0:01C24684]
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: <mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
	<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
	<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-dev/>
X-Archives-Salt: 0cb878db-e38e-46c6-8ca6-5a08920c12a8
X-Archives-Hash: 92be52474448be0b8fc5fbcf5c87b60b

> > 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