From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DseQ0-0007uP-MY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:24:45 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j6DAMs8U002993; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:22:54 GMT Received: from smtp804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.141]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j6DAJCPo015580 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:19:12 GMT Received: (qmail 69278 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2005 10:20:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wadham.oxford.ac.uk) (jmconveyors@86.133.4.219 with plain) by smtp804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Jul 2005 10:20:11 -0000 Received: by wadham.oxford.ac.uk (nbSMTP-0.99) for uid 1000 david.morgan@wadham.oxford.ac.uk; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:15:12 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:15:07 +0100 From: David Morgan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots? Message-ID: <20050713101507.GA11949@valinor.dynalias.net> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <1121159554.15192.65.camel@neuromancer.home.net> <20050712112918.732fb0d3@mating-tux.renatik.de> <1121163149.15192.90.camel@neuromancer.home.net> <20050712104739.GA11409@valinor.dynalias.net> <1121223048.15192.123.camel@neuromancer.home.net> <20050713094623.GA11444@valinor.dynalias.net> <42D4E7BB.3070708@planet.nl> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42D4E7BB.3070708@planet.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: be57e5ea-413f-4034-a4c5-4f5d81c2e9de X-Archives-Hash: 48581727472c0c015d8c09df00ed493a On 12:06 Wed 13 Jul , Holly Bostick wrote: > Which is why the proper way to unmask a hard-masked package is to enter > it into /etc/portage/package.unmask (and often thereafter also into > /etc/portage/package.keywords, as many hard-masked packages are also > keyword-masked). > Great, but what does that have to do with USE flags that are masked on a particular profile? There's probably an equivalent for them (/etc/portage/profile/use.unmask at a guess). I suspect that it's masked for a reason though.. Dave -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list