On 10/20/10 04:06:52, Andy Wilkinson wrote:
> I believe I know the answer to the question... the real question is,
> how can I work around it?
>
> I am running the development branch of www-client/chromium (currently
> 8.0.552.0). As a result, I like the latest builds to always be
> unmasked
> when they are available. However, once in a while there is a bad
> apple
> in the bunch and I'd like to mask that atom specifically. 8.0.552.0
> is
> one of those that I would like masked.
>
> What I'd like to do is:
>
> /etc/portage/package.unmask:
> www-client/chromium
>
> /etc/portage/package.mask:
> =www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0
>
> This case shows that, in fact, the mask comes first, as the atom in
> question is definitely unmasked in that scenario. I have tried
> putting
> either line into /etc/portage/profile/package.mask or .unmask, to no
> effect.
>
> I know I could do this by putting noninclusive comparative statements
> in
> .unmask, ala:
>
> <www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0
> >www-client/chromium-8.0.552.0
>
> But this seems somewhat clumsy to me. Does anyone know a trick to do
> what I'm looking for?
>
I usually comment out the line in package.unmask if I want the mask
to be effective. A line in /etc/portage/package.unmask overrules a
line in /etc/portage/package.mask .
Helmut.
Which Comes First, the Unmask or the Mask?
