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 1Dsex8-0006pd-Jo for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:58:59 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j6DAucF7032704; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:56:38 GMT Received: from smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.202]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j6DApFLR016035 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:51:15 GMT Received: (qmail 90341 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2005 10:52:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wadham.oxford.ac.uk) (jmconveyors@86.133.4.219 with plain) by smtp812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Jul 2005 10:52:13 -0000 Received: by wadham.oxford.ac.uk (nbSMTP-0.99) for uid 1000 david.morgan@wadham.oxford.ac.uk; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:47:15 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:47:06 +0100 From: David Morgan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots? Message-ID: <20050713104706.GA12081@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> <20050713101507.GA11949@valinor.dynalias.net> <42D4EF76.1010507@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: <42D4EF76.1010507@planet.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: ebb7451d-7609-4bdb-8c3f-73de1edd1d46 X-Archives-Hash: f97f564a4a088e47849e7a39502010c5 On 12:39 Wed 13 Jul , Holly Bostick wrote: > > What does which profile it is have to do with the mask? > /etc/portage/package.unmask unmasks hard-masked applications on the > profile you are using-- the profile supercedes all later adjustment > files, insofar as all later adjustment files (/etc/make.conf, > /etc/portage/whatever) all refer to the profile defaults to know what to > adjust. > 1) This has nothing to do with masked packages, it's about masked use flags. 2) packages can be masked by profile (as can use flags). > Obviously -- or at least it seems obvious to me, but that doesn't say > much-- that if the package is hard-masked, the USE flag that is > associated with it will be disabled (because the package the USE flag > would call is unavailable). Maybe, but that's not the way portage works these things out Dave -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list