[gentoo-user] emerge ignores /etcportage/package.mask

[gentoo-user] emerge ignores /etcportage/package.mask

[Maxim Wexler]

Hi group,

From the gentoo docs:

"Older cards such as the GeForce FX 5 series should use the 173.x
drivers, such as nvidia-drivers-173.14.15. For these cards, you should
mask >=x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-174.00 in your
/etc/portage/package.mask file. This will prevent newer versions of
the driver which are incompatible with your card from being
installed."

But emerge ignores package.mask and insists on installing the newer
pkg. Searching reveals an old bug marked 'resolved' but nothing to say
what the resolution is.

Maxim

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge ignores /etcportage/package.mask

[Alan McKinnon]

On Saturday 31 October 2009 23:44:00 Maxim Wexler wrote:
> Hi group,
> 
> From the gentoo docs:
> 
> "Older cards such as the GeForce FX 5 series should use the 173.x
> drivers, such as nvidia-drivers-173.14.15. For these cards, you should
> mask >=x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-174.00 in your
> /etc/portage/package.mask file. This will prevent newer versions of
> the driver which are incompatible with your card from being
> installed."
> 
> But emerge ignores package.mask and insists on installing the newer
> pkg. Searching reveals an old bug marked 'resolved' but nothing to say
> what the resolution is.


check that you don't have the ebuild listed in package.unmask

That takes precedence over package.mask

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge ignores /etcportage/package.mask

[Maxim Wexler]

> check that you don't have the ebuild listed in package.unmask
>
package.unmask is empty, haven't needed it yet. Only just started
stocking a fresh install.

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge ignores /etcportage/package.mask

[Dale]

Maxim Wexler wrote:
>> check that you don't have the ebuild listed in package.unmask
>>
>>     
> package.unmask is empty, haven't needed it yet. Only just started
> stocking a fresh install.
>
>
>   

Do you have a space in front of the line or something else that may
interfere with package.mask ?

You sure you have the file as package.mask ?  You know, spelled right
and all?  I mention because it sounds like something I would do.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)