On Tuesday 23 June 2009 17:49:40 James wrote:
> Alan McKinnon gmail.com> writes:
> > * removes masking keywords if the package is stable on your arch
> > ~* removes masking keywords if the package is stable on any arch
> > ** removes masking keywords for the package unconditionally
>
> none of th
Alan McKinnon gmail.com> writes:
> I cheat and just do this:
> x11-wm/enlightenment * ~* **
Does not work for xz-utils. Neil's post may be the reason,
but there is definately nothing I've read (in man pages)
to distinguish these anomalous cases?
> But enlightenment is a special case. e17
On 06/23/2009 06:28 PM, James wrote:
Nikos Chantziaras arcor.de> writes:
There's a point to everything. You need to use whatever suits what you
want to do.
Ok got it.
Now how do I unmask the version of:
app-arch/xz-utils
Available versions: **
By putting:
app-arc
Neil Bothwick digimed.co.uk> writes:
> > make the app-arch/xz-utils- (SVN) version available.
> This ebuild doesn't have a valid KEYWORDS line, try something less broken.
OK, I tried is because there does not seem to be other dependancies.
Pick an example for me, cause nothing I ever do
Nikos Chantziaras arcor.de> writes:
> There's a point to everything. You need to use whatever suits what you
> want to do.
Ok got it.
Now how do I unmask the version of:
app-arch/xz-utils
Available versions: **
James
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 16:40:51 James wrote:
> Alan McKinnon 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?
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:40:51 + (UTC), James wrote:
> app-arch/xz-utils
> Nothing I tried in either package.keywords or package.unmask
> make the app-arch/xz-utils- (SVN) version available.
This ebuild doesn't have a valid KEYWORDS line, try something less broken.
--
Neil Bothwick
Head
On 06/23/2009 05:40 PM, James wrote:
[...]
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?
There's a point to everything. You need to use whatever suits what you
want to do.
~: This version an
Alan McKinnon 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 yo
On 6/22/09, James wrote:
> Arttu V. gmail.com> writes:
>
>> More reading: ebuild(5)"
>
> Ah, ok so there is not restriction on using any of the
> the boolean operators in any config file underneath
> /etc/portage? as section 5 does not mention any
Well, for those files t
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:27:37 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Well that's easy, just don't use kdm :-)
>
> If you want pretty, there's entrance
> If you want light, there's slim
> If you want hard-core, there's xdm
If you want lazy, use kdm with auto-login.
--
Neil Bothwick
.sig? we don't need
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 June 2009 09:38:32 Dale wrote:
>
>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:51:45 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>>
This sounds cool. I don't unmask a lot or anything but something like
KDE 4 comes to mind for this. That requires a lot
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> There's also gdm. But I don't talk about gdm. It's personal, and painful.
> Don't ask :-)
>
Well, tell us why you don't like gdm. :-)
;-p
__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4180 (20090623) __
The message was
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 09:38:32 Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:51:45 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >> This sounds cool. I don't unmask a lot or anything but something like
> >> KDE 4 comes to mind for this. That requires a lot of work. I'm going
> >> to have to check to se
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:51:45 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>
>> This sounds cool. I don't unmask a lot or anything but something like
>> KDE 4 comes to mind for this. That requires a lot of work. I'm going
>> to have to check to see if autounmask supports this too.
>>
>
> I
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:51:45 -0500, Dale wrote:
> This sounds cool. I don't unmask a lot or anything but something like
> KDE 4 comes to mind for this. That requires a lot of work. I'm going
> to have to check to see if autounmask supports this too.
It does, it creates a file called autounmask
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 June 2009 01:17:16 Dale wrote:
>
>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:51:31 + (UTC), James wrote:
>>>
I'm mostly running stable with exceptions being enabled
via the /etc/portage file structure. Usually it's small,
>
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 01:17:16 Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:51:31 + (UTC), James wrote:
> >> I'm mostly running stable with exceptions being enabled
> >> via the /etc/portage file structure. Usually it's small,
> >> but now with kde4, BLOAT is my modus operand
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:17:16 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > All package.* files in /etc/portage can be replaced a directories,
> > then all the files in that directory are considered as a whole.
> For some reason, my light bulb has still not came on so here comes some
> questions. I would create /etc/po
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:51:31 + (UTC), James wrote:
>
>
>> I'm mostly running stable with exceptions being enabled
>> via the /etc/portage file structure. Usually it's small,
>> but now with kde4, BLOAT is my modus operandi,
>> not by choice..
>>
>
> It's easi
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:51:31 + (UTC), James wrote:
> I'm mostly running stable with exceptions being enabled
> via the /etc/portage file structure. Usually it's small,
> but now with kde4, BLOAT is my modus operandi,
> not by choice..
It's easier to manage if you make portage.keywords a
On Monday 22 June 2009 17:51:31 James wrote:
> So, as a conclusion, you probably want to use ~ instead of >= in there
>
> > as you apparently are running a mostly stable box (arch) instead of
> > testing (~arch)?
>
> This is my (mis)conception, although, as you have suggest,
> there are (gentoo) c
Arttu V. gmail.com> writes:
> More reading: ebuild(5)"
Ah, ok so there is not restriction on using any of the
the boolean operators in any config file underneath
/etc/portage? as section 5 does not mention any
> So, as a conclusion, you probably want to use ~ instead
On 6/22/09, James wrote:
> Where do I read more and find more of the latest example for
> syntax with portage and the different files therein?
> It should have read:
>
> 'man portage' does not show the use of the (><=) syntax
> within the package.keywords file ?
No, but it instructs one to peek
James tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> 'man portage' does not show the use of the (><=) syntax
> as an example for emerge?
Sorry for my sloppiness I should have been more precise
(more coffee required).
It should have read:
'man portage' does not show the use of the (><=) syntax
within the
On Monday 12 December 2005 11:23, a tiny voice compelled Ernie Schroder to
write:
> On Monday 12 December 2005 11:13, a tiny voice compelled Neil Bothwick to
>
> write:
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:59:20 -0500, Ernie Schroder wrote:
> > > > This is exactly why you should not use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS on t
On Monday 12 December 2005 12:28, a tiny voice compelled Holly Bostick to
write:
> In any case, some time must have passed and you logged off, shut down,
> or in some other way you must have closed the current login session in
> the term and begun another, which used the 'regular' settings read fr
Ernie Schroder schreef:
> On Monday 12 December 2005 10:11, a tiny voice compelled Holly
> Bostick to write:
>
Ernie Schroder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ebuild UD] sys-devel/m4-1.4.3 [1.4.4] [ebuild
> UD] sys-devel/autoconf-wrapper-3-r1 [3.2] [nomerge ]
>
On Monday 12 December 2005 11:13, a tiny voice compelled Neil Bothwick to
write:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:59:20 -0500, Ernie Schroder wrote:
> > > This is exactly why you should not use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS on the command
> > > line. It applies to the whole emerge process, so even if KDE would be
> > >
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:59:20 -0500, Ernie Schroder wrote:
> > This is exactly why you should not use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS on the command
> > line. It applies to the whole emerge process, so even if KDE would be
> > happy with the installed version of the dependencies, you have told
> > emerge to upgra
On Monday 12 December 2005 10:35, a tiny voice compelled Neil Bothwick to
write:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:50:17 -0500, Ernie Schroder wrote:
> > ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge kde
> >
> > All of these ~x86 packages were brought in at that time
>
> This is exactly why you should not use ACCEPT_KEYWO
On Monday 12 December 2005 10:11, a tiny voice compelled Holly Bostick to
write:
> Ernie Schroder schreef:
> > On Monday 12 December 2005 09:12, a tiny voice compelled Marc
> >
> > Christiansen to write:
> >> Ernie Schroder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> [ebuild UD] sys-devel/m4-1.4.3
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:50:17 -0500, Ernie Schroder wrote:
> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge kde
>
> All of these ~x86 packages were brought in at that time
This is exactly why you should not use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS on the command
line. It applies to the whole emerge process, so even if KDE would be
h
Ernie Schroder schreef:
> On Monday 12 December 2005 09:12, a tiny voice compelled Marc
> Christiansen to write:
>
>> Ernie Schroder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> [ebuild UD] sys-devel/m4-1.4.3 [1.4.4] [ebuild UD]
>>> sys-devel/autoconf-wrapper-3-r1 [3.2] [nomerge ]
>>>
On Monday 12 December 2005 09:12, a tiny voice compelled Marc Christiansen to
write:
> Ernie Schroder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [ebuild UD] sys-devel/m4-1.4.3 [1.4.4]
> > [ebuild UD] sys-devel/autoconf-wrapper-3-r1 [3.2]
> > [nomerge ] app-admin/perl-cleaner-1.01
> >
Ernie Schroder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ebuild UD] sys-devel/m4-1.4.3 [1.4.4]
> [ebuild UD] sys-devel/autoconf-wrapper-3-r1 [3.2]
> [nomerge ] app-admin/perl-cleaner-1.01
> [ebuild UD] dev-lang/perl-5.8.6-r8 [5.8.7-r2]
> [ebuild UD]sys-devel/libpe
36 matches
Mail list logo
