David Morgan schreef: > On 12:06 Wed 13 Jul , Holly Bostick wrote: > >>Which is why the proper way to unmask a hard-masked package is to enter >>it into /etc/portage/package.unmask (and often thereafter also into >>/etc/portage/package.keywords, as many hard-masked packages are also >>keyword-masked). >> > > > Great, but what does that have to do with USE flags that are masked on a > particular profile?
What does which profile it is have to do with the mask? /etc/portage/package.unmask unmasks hard-masked applications on the profile you are using-- the profile supercedes all later adjustment files, insofar as all later adjustment files (/etc/make.conf, /etc/portage/whatever) all refer to the profile defaults to know what to adjust. Obviously -- or at least it seems obvious to me, but that doesn't say much-- that if the package is hard-masked, the USE flag that is associated with it will be disabled (because the package the USE flag would call is unavailable). So if the package became available (was unmasked), then I would assume that the USE flag would be enabled, and one could just USE it normally (via /etc/portage/package.use, or /etc/make.conf). > > There's probably an equivalent for them (/etc/portage/profile/use.unmask > at a guess). I suspect that it's masked for a reason though.. Yes, hard masking is always for a reason-- and the fact that you have to go through several steps to install a hard-masked package is, I suspect, for a reason as well. Hard masking means that there are serious problems with the package (under certain conditions, if the package is only hard-masked under certain arches or profiles), and unmasking it via several steps should drive home that you're doing something that you should consider carefully before proceeding with. Hard masking also suggests that testers are needed to nail down the problem, so that the packages can be unmasked-- so by unmasking it, you are tacitly agreeing to be such a tester, and to contribute to b.g.o on the subject.... after all, if the package has serious problems, you're going to have to deal with them anyway, so you might as well report what you find. If you don't want to have anything to do with such a difficult package, then you shouldn't expend the effort to unmask it... that's why it's masked, so that those who don't want problems never see it at all. Holly -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
