[gentoo-osx] >=app-portage/esearch-0.7.1 masked

[gentoo-osx] >=app-portage/esearch-0.7.1 masked

[Grobian]

app-portage/esearch-0.7.1 explicitly requires python compiled with 
readline.  Apple doesn't do this for us, hence portage wants to pull 
python for users that use esearch.  Unfortunately for us esearch has 
been marked unstable when it was created, so I decided to mask it in the 
macos profile.

A user in IRC encountered this problem when updating world using 
~ppc-macos.  I expect all upcoming versions of esearch to require 
readline in esearch, hence I checked this patch in:


Index: package.mask
===================================================================
RCS file: 
/var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/default-darwin/macos/package.mask,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -r1.1 package.mask
--- package.mask        4 May 2005 00:05:33 -0000       1.1
+++ package.mask        27 Aug 2005 09:34:33 -0000
@@ -1,2 +1,6 @@
  # this version of nano can't save files on Mac OS X - see bug 89040
  =app-editors/nano-1.3.4
+
+# the newest esearch requires python with readline, which is not what
+# OSX supplies by default
+>=app-portage/esearch-0.7.1


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] >=app-portage/esearch-0.7.1 masked

[Grobian]

Ok, so I found that there is
profiles/default-darwin/macos/package.mask
and
profiles/default-darwin/macos/10.3/package.mask
profiles/default-darwin/macos/10.4/package.mask

all three included nano before my commit.

profiles/default-darwin/macos/package.mask contained a version numbered 
nano, the 10.3 and 10.4 profiles a generic nano mask (ie. it always 
collides).

What's the difference here exactly?  And why isn't the macos one used 
for packages that are evil on OSX *any version*, and the 10.4 and 10.3 
ones for more selective stuff?

I might miss something here, but if I don't I'd like to move all common 
stuff in 10.4 and 10.3 down to macos, as it greatly improves readability 
and greatly improves the use of the great inheritance structure provided 
by the profiles...


Grobian wrote:
> app-portage/esearch-0.7.1 explicitly requires python compiled with 
> readline.  Apple doesn't do this for us, hence portage wants to pull 
> python for users that use esearch.  Unfortunately for us esearch has 
> been marked unstable when it was created, so I decided to mask it in the 
> macos profile.
> 
> A user in IRC encountered this problem when updating world using 
> ~ppc-macos.  I expect all upcoming versions of esearch to require 
> readline in esearch, hence I checked this patch in:
> 
> 
> Index: package.mask
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: 
> /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/default-darwin/macos/package.mask,v
> retrieving revision 1.1
> diff -u -r1.1 package.mask
> --- package.mask        4 May 2005 00:05:33 -0000       1.1
> +++ package.mask        27 Aug 2005 09:34:33 -0000
> @@ -1,2 +1,6 @@
>  # this version of nano can't save files on Mac OS X - see bug 89040
>  =app-editors/nano-1.3.4
> +
> +# the newest esearch requires python with readline, which is not what
> +# OSX supplies by default
> +>=app-portage/esearch-0.7.1
> 
> 

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] profiles jungle (was: >=app-portage/esearch-0.7.1 masked)

[Grobian]

Ok, with shame I think I can say I learned something.  Since progressive 
inherits from macos I consider it to be wrong to have collision-protect 
USE flags in the macos/use.mask file.  Instead they should go into the 
macos/10.[34]/use.mask files.  I corrected this issue already in CVS. 
If someone still has some nice comment on this, please say so.

Grobian wrote:
> Ok, so I found that there is
> profiles/default-darwin/macos/package.mask
> and
> profiles/default-darwin/macos/10.3/package.mask
> profiles/default-darwin/macos/10.4/package.mask
> 
> all three included nano before my commit.
> 
> profiles/default-darwin/macos/package.mask contained a version numbered 
> nano, the 10.3 and 10.4 profiles a generic nano mask (ie. it always 
> collides).
> 
> What's the difference here exactly?  And why isn't the macos one used 
> for packages that are evil on OSX *any version*, and the 10.4 and 10.3 
> ones for more selective stuff?
> 
> I might miss something here, but if I don't I'd like to move all common 
> stuff in 10.4 and 10.3 down to macos, as it greatly improves readability 
> and greatly improves the use of the great inheritance structure provided 
> by the profiles...

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list