Re: [gentoo-user] Xine-ui masked?

Re: [gentoo-user] Xine-ui masked?

[Daniel Pielmeier]

Under /usr/portage/media-video/xine-ui i find the
xine-ui-0.99.4-r3.ebuild and stable it is stable too.

KEYWORDS="~alpha amd64 ~hppa ppc ppc64 sparc x86"

I am running gentoo on x86 so i think it has to be stable.

I have no masked xine-ui versions in

/etc/portage/package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/package.mask.

emerge -pv xine-ui

shows me

These are the packages that I would merge, in order:

Calculating dependencies
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "xine-ui" have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your
request:
- media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3 (masked by: ~x86 keyword)
- media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r2 (masked by: ~x86 keyword)
- media-video/xine-ui-0.99.3-r1 (masked by: ~x86 keyword)

For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or
refer to the Gentoo Handbook.

I use portage version 2.0.54

You mentioned that there are other package.mask files in the portage
profile, but where are they?

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Xine-ui masked?

[Mariusz Pękala]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2797 bytes --]

On 2006-02-05 23:08:13 +0100 (Sun, Feb), Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> Under /usr/portage/media-video/xine-ui i find the
> xine-ui-0.99.4-r3.ebuild and stable it is stable too.
> 
> KEYWORDS="~alpha amd64 ~hppa ppc ppc64 sparc x86"
> 
> I am running gentoo on x86 so i think it has to be stable.
> 
> I have no masked xine-ui versions in
> 
> /etc/portage/package.mask
> /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask.
> 
> emerge -pv xine-ui
> 
> shows me
> 
> These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies
> !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "xine-ui" have been masked.
> !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your
> request:
> - media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3 (masked by: ~x86 keyword)
> - media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r2 (masked by: ~x86 keyword)
> - media-video/xine-ui-0.99.3-r1 (masked by: ~x86 keyword)

I assume you have not synced recently? I have only one ebuild, you have
three.
They are masked by keyword - and you have just said that in
xine-ui-0.99.4-r3.ebuild KEYWORDS contained 'x86', not '~x86'.

So, I feel some strange disturbance in force...

Just out of curiosity: try 'grep xine /etc/portage/*' ?
Have you set portage overlay?

> I use portage version 2.0.54

Same here.

> You mentioned that there are other package.mask files in the portage
> profile, but where are they?


$ find /usr/portage/profiles/ -name package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/hardened/package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/default-darwin/package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/default-darwin/macos/10.3/package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/default-darwin/macos/package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/default-darwin/macos/10.4/package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/alpha/package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/alpha/2004.3/package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/sparc/sparc32/2005.0/package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/sparc/sparc32/2006.0/package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/sparc/sparc32/2005.1/package.mask
/usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/sparc/sparc32/2004.3/package.mask
[...]

These files may be traversed by portage when it 'combines' the profile
following 'parent' file in your profile directory and in each directory
pointed by the 'parent' file. See:
$ ls -l /etc/make.profile
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root 48 kwi  7  2005 /etc/make.profile -> ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.0

$ cat /etc/make.profile/parent
..
$ cat /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/parent
..
$ cat /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/parent
../base
  
  and so on..

- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by "grep -i virus $MESSAGE"
Trust me.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Xine-ui masked? [Solved]

[Daniel Pielmeier]

Thank you,

in one portage overlay i use there are three ebuilds

media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3
media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r2
media-video/xine-ui-0.99.3-r1

and they are all marked ~x86.

In the nomal portage tree i have only one ebuild

media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3

and it is marked x86.

I have removed the ~x86 media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3.ebuild in the
overlay manually and at the moment i emerge media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Xine-ui masked? [Solved]

[Holly Bostick]

Daniel Pielmeier schreef:
> Thank you,
> 
> in one portage overlay i use there are three ebuilds
> 
<snip>
> and they are all marked ~x86.

Ebuilds from overlay are always ~arch, afaik. Overlays are not
considered "stable" for what seem to me to be obvious reasons; namely
that only the Portage tree itself can mark ebuilds as stable, and since
these ebuilds are not part of the "legal" Portage system, who is
supposed to judge? and secondly,  that overlay ebuilds, which could come
from anywhere, could never "out of the box" be considered "stable" -- as
in working-- by the official Portage tree (which is really just another
way of saying the first part).

Anyway,

> I have removed the ~x86 media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3.ebuild in the 
> overlay manually and at the moment i emerge
> media-video/xine-ui-0.99.4-r3.

as far as I know, this is the correct solution; the other point of an
overlay is that you keep an eye on it, and if an overlay ebuild does in
fact make it into the regular Portage tree, you should remove the
overlay build from the overlay and let Portage take over (since, if I
recall something that Neil said some time ago, overlay ebuilds will
always supercede Portage ebuilds if they duplicate each other,
version-wise). That's what works for me, anyway.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Xine-ui masked? [Solved]

[Mariusz Pękala]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1175 bytes --]

On 2006-02-06 00:47:03 +0100 (Mon, Feb), Holly Bostick wrote:
> Daniel Pielmeier schreef:
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > in one portage overlay i use there are three ebuilds
> > 
> <snip>
> > and they are all marked ~x86.
> 
> Ebuilds from overlay are always ~arch, afaik. Overlays are not
> considered "stable" for what seem to me to be obvious reasons; namely
> that only the Portage tree itself can mark ebuilds as stable, and since
> these ebuilds are not part of the "legal" Portage system, who is
> supposed to judge? and secondly,  that overlay ebuilds, which could come
> from anywhere, could never "out of the box" be considered "stable" -- as
> in working-- by the official Portage tree (which is really just another
> way of saying the first part).

I humbly disagree. ;)
As in /usr/portage also in portage overlay ebuild is
stable if you mark it stable using KEYWORDS.

Portage overlays are our 'private' portage trees, and they are in no thing
'worse' than 'official' ebuilds.
You know that old saying:
 'A Gentooman's overlay is his castle'
;)

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by "grep -i virus $MESSAGE"
Trust me.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Xine-ui masked? [Solved]

[Holly Bostick]

Mariusz Pękala schreef:
> 
> Portage overlays are our 'private' portage trees, and they are in no
> thing 'worse' than 'official' ebuilds.

You clearly haven't seen, or even imagined, some of my initial attempts
at ebuild writing, which naturally resided in my overlay tree.

:-)

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list