I have searched this long and far, and have come to the conclusion that the usage of the package.unmask file should be illustrated with a working example, not just a one-liner. It does not work for me the way the docs seem to indicate it should. $ echo /usr/portage/package.unmask >=media-video/nvidia-kernel-1.0.7167-r1 >=media-video/nvidia-glx-1.0.7167-r1 >=media-video/nvidia-settings-1.0.7167-r1 $ emerge --update --pretend world [ebuild UD] media-video/nvidia-kernel-1.0.6629-r4 [1.0.7167-r1] [ebuild UD] media-video/nvidia-glx-1.0.6629-r5 [1.0.7167-r1] [ebuild UD] media-video/nvidia-settings-1.0.6629 [1.0.7167] I am trying portage to happily leave my build of 1.0.7167, but it does not seem to recognize this and wants to revert back to 1.0.6629. Now, this must be my error, of course, but it is really not clear to me how to fix this. So, may I suggest that the docs show $ emerge --update something something is masked. $ emerge --update something-higherversion also masked. $ echo ">= somedir/something-higherversion" > /usr/portage/package.unmask $ emerge --update something-higherversion now emerges the higher version. this would make it much simpler to understand. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
what you want is package.keywords not package.unmask
thanks for the info, it solves my problem---but could we not give an example of how to do this in http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3&chap=3 perhaps we could say so in "The package.unmask file" section "To unmask individual version, you should use the package.keywords file, not the package.unmask file." If possible, an explanation why would be good. See, I am reading the current description, and I still do not understand why this sort of instruction should go into the keyword file rather than the unmask file.
unmasking is the not the samething as accepting KEYWORDs we have a section in the handbook which covers package.keywords: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3&chap=3#doc_chap2 and in fact, the header describes exactly what you're trying to do: Mixing Stable with Testing
