Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > This is my (mis)conception, although, as you have suggest, > > there are (gentoo) cultural norms that do suggest > > certain boolean operations should not be used, > > in say for example, package.keywords? > That's more just a safeguard against forgetting you put it there than > anything > else Good to know. > The vast majority of cases will use only the "=" operator or nothing. That's > so you unmask the one version you are interested in, not everything from here > on out, including every buggy, pre-release and just plain broken version that > happens to have an ebuild. So entries in package.keywords should just have the ~ in front of them? No point in using other boolean operations in the package.keywords file? > The use-case for no operator is mostly for the case where you run say a > stable > box, and want the latest of a specific well-known package. You might want the > latest Qt for example. Another example is -svn ebuilds - enlightenment is a > case in point. The snapshots are always out of date, latest svn is pretty > stable, so one must unmask everything to get the -9999 versions Ok, now you just tossed my little (pee brain) around quite significantly... Your saying that not operator will get me the -9999 (SVN) version of a package?And that this is most likely the most stable because the devs/hacks work on it often? If so then lets put it to the test. Maybee app-arch/xz-utils ? so my entry in /etc/portage/package.keywords should look like this: app-arch/xz-utils Nothing I tried in either package.keywords or package.unmask make the app-arch/xz-utils-9999 (SVN) version available. So what did I miss? James
