Apparently, though unproven, at 11:06 on Friday 19 November 2010, Mick did opine thusly:
> On Thursday 18 November 2010 22:41:49 Alan McKinnon wrote: > > With all these changes it's hard to give firm advice, except to say this: > > > > If conf-update wants to make changes to package categories, and eix on > > your machine gives the same new ones as the new config file, then make > > the change. Otherwise find out why you are out of step. > > Yep, eix is telling me that suggested changes are sane and therefore I > should accept them. > > > having said that, yes it does look like you have enlightenment overlay > > uninstalled and the efl one installed. And it looks like you are now > > going to switch them back around again. Life on the bleeding edge is > > fun, right? > > Fun but uncomfortable! > ===================================== > Calculating dependencies... done! > > !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "dev-libs/e_dbus" have been masked. > !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your > request: - dev-libs/e_dbus-1.0.0_beta2 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword) > ===================================== > > So it seems that I should delete efl, install enlightenment overlay > instead, remove any package.keywords on all 9999 ** packages (?) that I > had set up for efl and instead unmask beta versions of packages as portage > is telling me to do. Have I got this right, or should I leave 9999 ** in > my package keywords for the enlightenment packages? You shouldn't have to unmask the packages as they won't be listed in profiles/package.mask, so the keyword method should be right. And we'll have to watch for category/package names changes as well and modify keywords to suit. But that won't break anything, you'll get a message saying a package is masked. Once you unmask/keyword it, the emerge will proceed. > > I may wait until Sunday or so in the hope that all this dust has settled, > because I fear that I may be caught half-way between changes on efl and > enlightenment overlays with no way of installing a working desktop. > > Thanks again for holding my hand on this. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
