[gentoo-user] Which Comes First, the Unmask or the Mask?

[gentoo-user] Which Comes First, the Unmask or the Mask?

[Andy Wilkinson]

 I believe I know the answer to the question... the real question is,
how can I work around it? ;)

I am running the development branch of www-client/chromium (currently
8.0.552.0).  As a result, I like the latest builds to always be unmasked
when they are available.  However, once in a while there is a bad apple
in the bunch and I'd like to mask that atom specifically.  8.0.552.0 is
one of those that I would like masked.

What I'd like to do is:

/etc/portage/package.unmask:
www-client/chromium

/etc/portage/package.mask:
=www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0

This case shows that, in fact, the mask comes first, as the atom in
question is definitely unmasked in that scenario.  I have tried putting
either line into /etc/portage/profile/package.mask or .unmask, to no effect.

I know I could do this by putting noninclusive comparative statements in
.unmask, ala:

<www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0
>www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0

But this seems somewhat clumsy to me.  Does anyone know a trick to do
what I'm looking for?

Thanks,

-Andy

Re: [gentoo-user] Which Comes First, the Unmask or the Mask?

[Helmut Jarausch]

On 10/20/10 04:06:52, Andy Wilkinson wrote:
>  I believe I know the answer to the question... the real question is,
> how can I work around it? ;)
> 
> I am running the development branch of www-client/chromium (currently
> 8.0.552.0).  As a result, I like the latest builds to always be
> unmasked
> when they are available.  However, once in a while there is a bad
> apple
> in the bunch and I'd like to mask that atom specifically.  8.0.552.0
> is
> one of those that I would like masked.
> 
> What I'd like to do is:
> 
> /etc/portage/package.unmask:
> www-client/chromium
> 
> /etc/portage/package.mask:
> =www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0
> 
> This case shows that, in fact, the mask comes first, as the atom in
> question is definitely unmasked in that scenario.  I have tried
> putting
> either line into /etc/portage/profile/package.mask or .unmask, to no
> effect.
> 
> I know I could do this by putting noninclusive comparative statements
> in
> .unmask, ala:
> 
> <www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0
> >www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0
> 
> But this seems somewhat clumsy to me.  Does anyone know a trick to do
> what I'm looking for?
> 

I usually comment out the line in package.unmask if I want the mask 
to be effective.  A line in /etc/portage/package.unmask overrules a 
line in /etc/portage/package.mask .

Helmut.