> # emerge -vp =gnome-2.14* > > These are the packages that would be merged, in order: > > Calculating dependencies > !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "=gnome-2.14*" have been masked. > !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request: > - gnome-base/gnome-2.14.0 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) > # John N. Laliberte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (12 Mar 2006) > # GNOME 2.14 mask. You must follow instructions here: > # http://d.g.o/~allanonjl/gnome/2.13/adding.from.overlay.txt > # for adding files from our overlay. > #Most of these packages will break/not compile because of eclass > #changes that won't be made until every package is in the tree. > #Don't unmask these and don't file bugs for them > # Start GNOME 2.14 mask > > Did you the read comments here (d.g.o refers to dev.gentoo.org in case anyone > is wondering)? I most certainly wouldn't go ahead and unmask any package with > that kind of explanation why it was masked in the first place. What bothers > me about this, however, is not the fact that you did unmask it but rather the > fact the you leave a script here which is supposed to be able to unmask and > unkeyword any package without giving any kind of warnings about this.
Yeah, so? *crickets* Thanks, the d.g.o. was pretty clear, but I can imagine that confusing people, the referenced document was next to useless, did you read it? > IMHO any script that is made public and which does what your script is doing > should print out the reason why each package it unmasks was originally masked > and perhaps even ask for confirmation. I'm not a baby sitter, and we are using Linux. However, due to your concerns I will put in a warning, and add that as a TODO on my page. Furthermore, I have no idea what concerns you really have here. Nothing will format thier FS, it may Break Their Gentoo(tm). I can imagine all sort of evil here. However, since I am only marginally assist them, if they do something stupid, it's their own fault. > Also I think it is a bit amusing that running your script without any > arguments tells me that I should include the versioned name of any package > that I want unmasked/unkeyworded. And then giving any kind of argument(s) > makes it unmask/unkeyword gnome-2.14*. Without checking the argument(s) that > I gave. I know.. it's just a minor bug. I also think (without knowing it) > that it will in fact work for most packages when that minor bug is > corrected. ;) heh, thanks, It was very late last night, and I uploaded the wrong version of the script, however, apart from the bugfix I added a warning to keep people happy. > It does, however, work for gnome-2.14.0 and it does add a LOT of lines to > package.keyword and package.mask. E.g. media-libs/gst-plugins-base adds five > lines to package.keyword i.e. version 0.10.0 to 0.10.4 on a line each. I > don't think the results will ever differ on the first two version numbers so > I think the optimal solution for this would be to just add version 0.10*. I'm > not sure that it will never differ though. Actually, that was one of my TODO items. I think that there should be two options, -L for latest and the default behaviour of more conservative to pick the earliest package and install that. Can you submit a patch? > Just for the record I am not trying to offend you here. This is supposed to be > constructive critisism. ;) Oh, I am not to worried about what other people think, and I never pictured a warning being needed. SO, hey, it was probably good for someone. Sorry for typos - babies are screaming =). Sincerley, Joshua -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
