[gentoo-user] package masking

2012-04-28 Thread Samuraiii
Hi to everyone,
my question is:

Is there easy way to emerge gnome meta-package while masking some
useless (for me) features such as vino, vinagre,...
For now I'm using gnome-light but this is very minimal and so there are
some packages that I have to hand select to my world which is not so
convenient and I'm afraid of loosing touch with some new cool features
in future updates.

Thanks for help in advance
S



-- 
Samuraiii
e-mail: samura...@volny.cz mailto:samura...@volny.cz
GnuPG key ID: 0x80C752EA
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x80C752EAop=vindexfingerprint=onexact=on
(obtainable on http://pgp.mit.edu)
Full copy of public timestamp block http://publictimestamp.org
signatures id-14659 (from 2012-04-27 18:00:06) is included in header of
html.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-user] package masking

2012-04-28 Thread Florian Philipp
Am 28.04.2012 11:21, schrieb Samuraiii:
 Hi to everyone,
 my question is:
 
 Is there easy way to emerge gnome meta-package while masking some
 useless (for me) features such as vino, vinagre,...
 For now I'm using gnome-light but this is very minimal and so there are
 some packages that I have to hand select to my world which is not so
 convenient and I'm afraid of loosing touch with some new cool features
 in future updates.
 
 Thanks for help in advance
 S
 
 
 

Certainly not. The most reasonable way is to maintain your own meta
package in an overlay. Just copy gnome-*.ebuild there and remove all
dependencies you don't like.

Regards,
Florian Philipp



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-user] package masking

2012-04-28 Thread Michael Hampicke
 Certainly not. The most reasonable way is to maintain your own meta
 package in an overlay. Just copy gnome-*.ebuild there and remove all
 dependencies you don't like.

Sounds like a good idea. I am not to happy with some meta packages
either. I'll give it a try.



[gentoo-user] «-»: [gentoo-user] package masking

2012-04-28 Thread Samuraiii

  
  

  Thank you for swift reply.
  That look almost same as the way I have it right now (gnome-light
  and hand selected packages in world).
  



On 2012-04-28 12:04, Florian Philipp wrote:

  Am 28.04.2012 11:21, schrieb Samuraiii:

  
Hi to everyone,
my question is:

Is there "easy" way to emerge gnome meta-package while masking some
useless (for me) features such as vino, vinagre,...
For now I'm using gnome-light but this is very minimal and so there are
some packages that I have to hand select to my world which is not so
convenient and I'm afraid of loosing touch with some new cool features
in future updates.

Thanks for help in advance
S




  
  Certainly not. The most reasonable way is to maintain your own meta
package in an overlay. Just copy gnome-*.ebuild there and remove all
dependencies you don't like.

Regards,
Florian Philipp




-- 
  
Samuraiii
e-mail: samura...@volny.cz
GnuPG key ID: 0x80C752EA
(obtainable on http://pgp.mit.edu)
  Full copy
of public timestamp block
signatures id-14665 (from 2012-04-28 12:00:08) is included in
header of html.
  

  



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-user] package masking

2012-04-28 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:49:54 +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:

  Certainly not. The most reasonable way is to maintain your own meta
  package in an overlay. Just copy gnome-*.ebuild there and remove all
  dependencies you don't like.  
 
 Sounds like a good idea. I am not to happy with some meta packages
 either. I'll give it a try.

If you use portage-2.2, sets provide an easier way to do this. A set is
just a list of package atoms, one per line, in a file
in /etc/portage/sets, say /etc/portage/sets/gnome. Then you just emerge
@gnome.

Unlike a versioned ebuild, there is no need to modify the set when new
versions are released, the set will always use the latest matching
version.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Diarrhoea is hereditary, it runs in your genes.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-user] package masking

2012-04-28 Thread Michael Hampicke
 If you use portage-2.2, sets provide an easier way to do this. A set is
 just a list of package atoms, one per line, in a file
 in /etc/portage/sets, say /etc/portage/sets/gnome. Then you just emerge
 @gnome.

Portage Sets look nice, but I'm still on portage 2.1 - haven't tried 2.2
yet, I just wanted a stable portage on my production boxes.
But that's no reason not to try it on my workstation here :) emerging
portage 2.2...



[gentoo-user] package masking question

2006-06-27 Thread Roy Wright

Howdy,

I'm curious if there is a way to conditionally package mask.
Let me give todays example.

Running ~x86.

gimp-2.3.9 is installed.

gimp-perl-2.2_pre1 has this RDEPEND =media-gfx/gimp-2.2*

So naturally wants to downgrade gimp to 2.2.11-r1.

What would be nice is to be able to mask:

 =gimp-2.3 if =gimp-perl-2.2_pre1

That would then downgrade gimp to 2.2 and leave it there
until the next version of gimp-perl is available.

As it is, all I can see to do to prevent upgrade/downgrade
cycling of gimp is to package mask =gimp-2.3 and hopefully
remember to unmask it when the next release of gimp-perl
is available.

It just feels like there ought to be a better way...


Thank you,
Roy
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-user] package masking question

2006-06-27 Thread Hani Duwaik
On 6/27/06, Roy Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Howdy,I'm curious if there is a way to conditionally package mask.Let me give todays example.Running ~x86.gimp-2.3.9 is installed.gimp-perl-2.2_pre1 has this RDEPEND =media-gfx/gimp-2.2*
So naturally wants to downgrade gimp to 2.2.11-r1.What would be nice is to be able to mask:=gimp-2.3 if =gimp-perl-2.2_pre1That would then downgrade gimp to 2.2 and leave it there
until the next version of gimp-perl is available.As it is, all I can see to do to prevent upgrade/downgradecycling of gimp is to package mask =gimp-2.3 and hopefullyremember to unmask it when the next release of gimp-perl
is available.It just feels like there ought to be a better way...Have you tried the suggestion outlined at:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3chap=3===The package.mask file


When you don't want Portage to take a certain package or a specific version of a
package into account you can mask it yourself by adding an appropriate line to
/etc/portage/package.mask.



For instance, if you don't want Portage to install newer kernel sources than
gentoo-sources-2.6.8.1, you add the following line to
package.mask:



Code Listing5: /etc/portage/package.mask example
sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.8.1Just wondering...-Hani-- If, of the many truths, you select only one and follow it blindly, it will become a falsehood, and you a fanatic.


Re: [gentoo-user] package masking question

2006-06-27 Thread Roy Wright

Hani Duwaik wrote:

Have you tried the suggestion outlined at:


http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3chap=3



Yes, that is just normal package masking.  Maybe I should elaborate.
I like to update daily.  When the occasional blocker or cyclic dependency
hit, I'd like to simply mark it (generate bug report if necessary), and go
on.  Where I find myself failing with the package.mask approach is
remembering some time in the future to go back and remove these
temporary masks.

So I was querying if there is a better process.  Some way to tickle
that the ebuild that caused the problem has been upgraded and that
I should unmask the package.


Thank you,
Roy

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-user] package masking question

2006-06-27 Thread Benno Schulenberg
Roy Wright wrote:
 Where I find myself failing
 with the package.mask approach is remembering some time in the
 future to go back and remove these temporary masks.

If you keep the temporary masks at the top of package.mask, you 
could make a wrapper for emerge that after every --sync prints say 
the top five lines of /etc/portage/package.mask, to remind you.

Benno
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-user] package masking question

2006-06-27 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:49:37 +0200, Benno Schulenberg wrote:

 If you keep the temporary masks at the top of package.mask, you 
 could make a wrapper for emerge that after every --sync prints say 
 the top five lines of /etc/portage/package.mask, to remind you.

Or add comments and grep for ^#

If you wanted to be really cute, you could use /etc/portage/bashrc to
email you when a specific package gets a new version.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Trekkers work out in the `He's Dead Gym'.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-user] package masking question

2006-06-27 Thread AJ Spagnoletti

On 6/27/06, Roy Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Howdy,

I'm curious if there is a way to conditionally package mask.
Let me give todays example.

Running ~x86.

gimp-2.3.9 is installed.

gimp-perl-2.2_pre1 has this RDEPEND =media-gfx/gimp-2.2*

So naturally wants to downgrade gimp to 2.2.11-r1.

What would be nice is to be able to mask:

  =gimp-2.3 if =gimp-perl-2.2_pre1

That would then downgrade gimp to 2.2 and leave it there
until the next version of gimp-perl is available.



Just a thought here but would it be worthwhile to just modify the
ebuild? instead of
RDEPEND =media-gfx/gimp-2.2*
have this
RDEPEND =media-gfx/gimp-2.2*

This would allow you to not have to downgrade gimp. Its a possibilty
without more research I wouldnt be able to tell you if its the best
solution or not though

AJ
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list