The current mask for ntp is: =net-misc/ntp-4.1.72* =net-misc/ntp-4.1.71* Why can't portage find the ntp-4.1.1a ebuild, named, ntp-4.1.1a.ebuild?
because of the inclusion mask for default-1.0 -- are you sure you want to downgrade everybody?
ntp-4.1.1a is masked out in the profile, the newer versions as being alpha in package.mask
Paul is correct. Some people were having trouble building 4.1.72, and after investigation, I learned that 4.1.72 is an *alpha* release. I don't know the ntp software very well, but a quick search shows that nearly every other distro feels that 4.1.1 or 4.1.1a is the most appropriate to ship. 4.1.1a is the latest release in the stable line, and as a consequence, I feel that it's most appropriate for us to ship it as well. I *thought* I had done everything properly, namely, masked 4.1.71* and 4.1.72*, and provided a 4.1.1a ebuild. Is there something else?
I think so. As I explained in another bug (sorry, can't remember), 4.1.72* is *alpha*. Every other distro I checked feels it best to ship 4.1.1 or 4.1.1a, and I don't see why not. 4.1.1a is actually newer than 4.1.72, and is of a stable branch. Several people were having problems building 4.1.72, with no clear solution.
renaming >=net-misc/ntp-4.1.71-r6 to >=net-misc/ntp-4.1.1a in the 1.0 profile's "packages" file fixed it here.
Just my 2 cents worth. For me, Gentoo originally built 4.1.72 before it was masked, and it works fine. I dont like the idea of downgrading to 4.1.1 just because it is "stable". In my opinion, portage should not barf if a package that has already been installed is masked, it should just use the info already in /var/db/pkgs and build the dependancies like usual. Perhaps a warning, but it should continue. Obviously it shouldnt let me install a masked package, but it shouldnt die - then again, Im no portage expert.
I have adjusted the inclusion masks in the profiles to emerge 4.1.1, so due to that and the /usr/profile/package.mask file 4.1.1a will be the ntp that shows up
