From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22429 invoked by uid 1002); 22 Jul 2003 22:53:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 9237 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2003 22:53:42 -0000 To: Peter Ruskin Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <200307220034.02523.aoyu93@dsl.pipex.com> <200307220730.12371.aoyu93@dsl.pipex.com> From: "James H. Cloos Jr." In-Reply-To: <200307220730.12371.aoyu93@dsl.pipex.com> Date: 22 Jul 2003 18:53:33 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex and glibc X-Archives-Salt: 6fe47128-6966-4c99-952f-81f39714398f X-Archives-Hash: 50cab6a9df88364455372f8ccfdf080b >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Ruskin writes: Peter> # cat /etc/portage/package.mask | grep glibc # glibc-2.3.2 In my experience, /etc/portage/package.mask is ignored, unlike /etc/portage/package.unmask. The OP is probably having the same problem. (I had just guessed, when .unmask was added, that .mask would also work. But my experimentation proved otherwise.) So why does it *work* for you? :) -JimC -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list