Summary: | Portage 2.0.48-r5 doesn't respect /etc/portage/package.unmask | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | alex f <acid.punk> |
Component: | Unclassified | Assignee: | Nicholas Jones (RETIRED) <carpaski> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
alex f
2003-07-22 03:08:45 UTC
I'm not sure whether /etc/portage/package.unmask is a hoax or an ignored configuration file. grep -nr package.unmask /usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/portage.py /usr/lib/portage/ /usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/portage.py:5099:pkgunmasklines=grabfile("/etc/portage/package.unmask"); Then again, maybe it is a misunderstanding on how to use it. hardmask vs. ~mask. Perhaps you have a syntax error in your file? package.unmask only works for packages masked in /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask, not for ~arch masking. damn. sorry about this then. And why? I expected it to be a general unmasking possibility, too. I really miss something like that. Re: Comment #4, well so do I! Until Portage has this feature, maybe the following would be of interest: http://gentoo.devel-net.org/portage/gpp/. |