From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1P8aHS-0001Ji-77 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:08:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DE47DE0798 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:08:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mta-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.7.73]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB032E079D for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:28:19 +0000 (UTC) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from ironport-out-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.40]) by mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0LAL002K9EV64980@mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:28:18 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,355,1283724000"; d="scan'208";a="77778577" Received: from relay-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay.rwth-aachen.de) ([134.130.7.75]) by ironport-in-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:28:15 +0200 Received: from numa-i.igpm.rwth-aachen.de (numa-i.igpm.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.161.252]) by relay.rwth-aachen.de (8.14.4+Sun/8.13.8/1) with ESMTP id o9KESEWY021926 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:28:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from numa-i (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by numa-i.igpm.rwth-aachen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E6487B for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:28:12 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:28:12 +0200 From: Helmut Jarausch Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Which Comes First, the Unmask or the Mask? To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <4CBE4EBC.9070203@gmail.com> In-reply-to: <4CBE4EBC.9070203@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.8 Message-id: <1287584892.6107.0@numa-i> X-Archives-Salt: 0931beb4-7606-4eb9-b151-6b22034e476b X-Archives-Hash: bbc056d5e831bd03e40f3b12e05ff364 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 > > 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.